I love DBH interviews but the sound quality is always consistently so terrible it makes it frustrating to listen to. Still going on my watch list nonetheless...
Really, really bad distortion. Listening to it is physically painful. During the last 30-40 minutes, I had to take breaks from it just to give my ears and brain a rest!
I love David Bentley Hart but he really needs to fix his microphone situation. Every interview I see of his there is a significant audio problem! I think using headphones would even be better. Anyways, great interview Larry!
Thanks for this. I'm from the hardcore calvinistic reformed tradition and I love Hart so far. I have been using his NT translation and find it increasingly useful and honest. I will be reading his book.
I love DBH and he certainly challenges many Catholics. While many like to say "I don't agree with everything he says", they may need to also consider if they met anyone where agreement was absolute. He is more right than not, and breathes much life to theology.
Good comment. I hope DBH still allows himself to be challenged by good Catholics. And he will be doing so unless he is truly and eternally superior to all of them. I wonder if he is thus superior? I wonder if he thinks he is?
Funny thing is that Plato isn't as Platonic as people are inclined to assume. For example, Socrates wonders if the body is a prison for the soul whilst literally in a prison, awaiting the hemlock, and so which is his portal to immortal life. If you take the quote out of context the irony is missed: Plato's implication is that the body radiates eternity, and our true identity, if we have the eyes to see.
@@bayreuth79 Lol you know Mark Vernon has a PhD in Platonic philosophy right? Doesn’t mean he’s correct of course, but he’s at least as qualified as any Greek philosophy scholar to speak about this
@@Durziage Thanks for the argument from authority, the weakest of all arguments. I can point to other authorities, much more famous authorities, who disagree with Vernon.
@@bayreuth79 I explicitly stated that his qualifications don’t mean he’s correct. Your initial comment is more of an argument from authority than mine. Good day to you.
I screened this interview with great interest. Very absorbing discussion. I only wish the audio could be cleaned up. The distortion is absolutely Horrible to the point of pain, and it only gets worse in the last 30 or so minutes. I am sure the technology exists to remedy this problem. The distortion really drags on one's concentration whilst trying to listen to the interview. Please clean up the audio on this interview.
Wow it is really hard to find DBH interviews with decent audio quality. This one wins the award for combination of best interview with most annoying background noise. Why not just reachedule the interview for a time when there isnt a maniac loose with a hammer?
Dr Larry, I was so surprised you didn't ask the question which I felt was begging to be asked which is: If we are to be simply shed of the flesh at the resurrection, why oh why are we flesh at all? Isn't it a sheer waste of time? And what then is meant by "The Resurrection of the Body" in the creed?
I mean, this is true of anything that we do in our fallen condition. Was the Fall itself a waste of time since we will be restored? The Fall is what causes bodies to be fleshly. Flesh is like congealed light. In the Resurrection, the body is raised a spiritual, non-fleshly body of light. Consider the scriptural accounts and the four qualities that Aquinas attributes to the glorified body: it has impassibility, subtlety, agility, and clarity.
DBH is insufferably arrogant. It is an immediate red flag that something in his thought might be wrong, but is hidden under his ego. People are simply afraid to challenge him. I suspect that his work will get a rough treatment after he passes.
DBH disagrees with NT Wright about some things. NT Wright, says DBH, is averse to those disagreeing with him. DBH thus suggesting he is open to serious disagreement. Ehhhhh ??? Is this a joke ???
This seems to be a discussion held in a private language. It's transcendent for sure, but not in an absolute good way. I found myself reaching for my Occam brand razor. Fun listen, even so.
DB is a towering intellect which puts Roman orthodoxy on its back feet. He is so quick that to argue against him is to lose by our lesser light. He has many good insights. He is provocative. He may be too smart. I studied with Brian Daley and Dan Harrington at Weston which allowed me to appreciate his comments on Paul, early gnostic ethos and resurrection. Anyway we all need a gadfly..
By "flesh and blood" Paul seems to intend a body that can die and is mortal or perishable, not that the physical flesh won't be resurrected. Read the surrounding context which connects flesh and blood to death: 1 Corinthians 15:50-56 Now I say this, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [a]the perishable inherit [b]the imperishable. 51 Behold, I am telling you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [d]imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written: “Death has been swallowed up in victory. 55 Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;
So when Jesus talks about people being thrown into the fire prepared for "the devil and his angels," he's saying the burning garbage pit of Gehenna was made for throwing fallen angels into it?? Weird flex but alright.
If I may compare this very interesting exchange with one that occurred between Prof Hart and Prof Milbank about 12 months ago, I suggest to both Dr Hart and Prof Hart that each of them might be in need of physiotherapeutic or chiropractic attention because this level of mutual back slapping may have damaged muscles, tendons, or even your spines. Be careful !!!
Universalist Christianity using the alternate definition of as Christ as being ‘an emanation of pure spirit on earth’ - sounds an awful lot like the Vedante/Yogi’s understanding Avatar beings. As does the idea of powers and principalities sound a lot like the various astral layers of the universe in Vedante/Buddhism. . Just goes to show - we are all talking about the same things at the end of the day 🙏🏼
@Oskar You are making a case for scrupulous discernment and hierarchical categorizations of spiritual 'taxonomy' . Of which I said nothing against. However - we should also be careful not to get swept away in a never ending regress of discernments - as the male mind- in particular likes to do. Lest we forget that existential connection to Love - the font of Creation -- is the point. Not endless intellectual swordsmanship. The heart should power the mind. But that is not the case with most smart people. I've studied a great deal - and the Eastern idea of the Unity of Consciousness + Avatar beings is a great source of intersection between east and western religious approaches. We can honor Christ as much as we want within that paradigm. All Yogi's/Vedantics/Buddhists honor Christ. Some even put him in the center of their worship icons - and consider him a Prime Avatar - or Oversoul Avatar. These are beings - one per planet - who are the highest manifestations of the Godhead into worldly form. But again - the Vedic texts always mention planets, and soul cycles in a universal context. Which - in the modern world - with UFO disclosure soon coming - feels right to me.
@Oskar I would simply call the most big 'thing' the singular source of I AM - aka God. Which is then particularized by the devil or the mayanic force - that force which pulls apart the ONE, good and true. Christ Consciousness is the magnetic contact point between the inneffable singular ONE - and the manifest fallen world. The infinitely loving and endlessly resourceful magnet that pulls all souls back into the fold of the One (through many life times most likely) such that each soul gets a rich and complete roller coaster ride through the material and back into the Infinite. It is through the Christ Consciousness' purity that aligns the material world in Grace - that allows us to return. Many easterners take the view that the devil or Maya is, at the highest pitch - is actually God's companion - allowing it/him to experience the structure, fullness and richness of the material and astral cosmos. Otherwise 'it' would simply be alone. Yes the material world is fallen (it is not the Completeness of the ONE) -- but at the same time it is what creates something rather than nothing at all. This is the Divine Feminine force - that aspect of God which actually enjoys being pushed, stretched, and expanded. This is the wombic, birthing aspect of Creation. And the easterners also emphasize this, rightfully in my opinion.
Almost impossible to listen with all these scraping microphone noises. Pretty sure it's DBH's mic. It's such a shame. I'll have to wait for the transcript, should someone have the patience to make one.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Are you quite sure? It sounds like a particular kind of sound endemic to certain failing condenser mics. The sound quality of your microphone has generally been far higher, even apart from the added noise. I'll try listening again; don't want to miss a word!
@@leavesinthewind7441 It's a very different phenomenon, acoustically, the effect on Chapp. If you're doing more of these I'd recommend swapping out your microphone, at least as a test. As it is, we have the sonic equivalent of some wretched 8-point Calabria font printed smudgily by a faulty dot-matrix printer...
@@worldnotworld Honestly, his microphone cut through the ostinato more powerfully, but both voices are disrupted in the recording. And it’s odd that neither of us heard any problem at the time.
Sometimes DBH is his own worst enemy. He goes from Crystal clear articulation of his view to vague self-sabotaging mumblings of his views, and then he complains that people don’t understand him.
@@littlebrotha123 Er, look at how badly people *misunderstood* his “You Are Gods,” and his “That All Shall be Saved.” And the way he answered RLK’s question on whether there’s a soul- in context, it’s obvious what Kuhn was asking.
Look, you condescending twit, the noises were not caused by anything on our end. It was not a microphone problem. I have been using LiveWebinar as the platform and it is not a computer or even cloud based processing format, but an off site server processes the video. And lately the processing has been awful and what I get back are videos with bizarre noises that were not there from our end. I do not recommend LiveWebinar to anyone and have stopped using it myself. And I could not have asked someone of David Hart's statue to do the whole interview over again. With someone in as much of a demand as he is, you get one shot. So I went with what I had.
There is a common and sinful calumny that comes from the recent disciples of VB used here by DBH that those who believe that hell is and will be occupied want people to be in hell. Those who believe hell is occupied are like greedy misers counting coins, but instead they are counting the number of souls in hell and delighting in every enumeration of an additional soul. Those who make these calumnious accusations will answer to the judge of the living and the dead whether or not they believe in the final judgement. The convenient thing about being a universalist is that you can ignore Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor in charitable discourse and can look upon everyone who disagrees with you as an idiot (e.g. Mr. Hart speaking of evangelicals with disdain as though they are intellectual simpletons). The inconvenient part about being a universalist is that you will answer to the judge of the living and the dead for the damnable consequences of such a lack of charity. In my estimation, the inconvenient part heavily outweighs the convenient part. So now to address this calumny. The reason that I care about this issue is the same reason that the popes who condemned indifferentism care about it. I care about the issue because I care about souls and it is extremely dangerous for people to believe that no one will (or may) ultimately be in hell. It makes Christ's warnings vacuous. It makes the two ways noted in the Didache and the warning abouts life and death in Deuteronomy vacuous. A child that knows his dad will never spank him even though the dad threatens a spanking will at least be tempted to despise his father knowing that he will never make good on his threats. Viewing God as indulgent of our sins such that He makes threats that will never be realized in any instance is completely absurd. It is rooted neither in reason nor revelation.
The claim that those who believe in apokatastasis either do not believe in hell or believe no one ever goes there is textbook calumny. It is hard to take seriously someone who projects onto others of what they themselves do.
@@shawnm4189 And where did I say that all who believe in apokatastasis don't believe in hell? You are projecting your own imagination onto the computer screen.
@jmichaelcopas "I care about souls and it is extremely dangerous for people to believe that no one will (or may) ultimately be in hell." Your words. From there you go into the usual tired litany of how God's words would be useless if he did not essentially torment people into infinity for their sins and furthermore, that if God failed to punish people in perpetuity that means no real punishment at all. These are standard infernalist arguments and they are very weak intellectually and ethically not just Scripturally. Look, if you think the apokatastasis involves God having an indulgence for our sins and not chastising us for them in various ways, then you flat out do not understand the concept at all.
@@shawnm4189 Yes those are my words. And those words do not say what you are hell bent on reading into them. They do not deny that those who believe in apokatastasis may also believe in hell or that it is temporarily populated by people. So, again, your overactive imagination is hard at work. You also asserted without any support or argumentation that the argument I provided was intellectually weak. Two things in response. First, stating that an argument is weak does precisely zero to actually demonstrate that an argument is weak. So you have done nothing to show that there is anything at all wrong with the argument. You have just made a question begging assertion. Second, St Augustine and St. Thomas, two of the greatest figures in the Christian intellectual tradition, held that hell is populated with humans paying the eternal consequences for their sins. To suggest that those holding such positions must be simpletons is sheer nonsense. That sort of suggestion might impress sophists and DBH's lap dogs but it is not going to be taken seriously anywhere else. You also suggested that they are weak Scripturally. Wow. I must be in the presence of a real bible scholar here. What, may I ask, makes you think you are in a good position to make such claims. Have you taken the time to learn Hebrew? What about Greek? Latin? No? Well then stop pretending. I have learned all three languages and have translated the entire NT as well as the first four books of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and the Greek of the LXX and the suggestion that the traditional belief in hell lacks Scriptural support is more nonsense. So why don't you stop pretending.
I wish this guy would just make his case. Stop referring to all the important stuff and giving us bits of filler. It's a new age.. most of us don't have time to read your book. Please make your case on video and answer all of the counter-arguments.
The misunderstanding here is profound. It was also from the beginning in that it was the introductory message found on the surface of the Gospels, all of which pragmatically hid-with the god of this world-the hidden wisdom Paul preached more or less openly. A marriage (past, present and future) is a spiritual body. So is a family and a city and a nation. So is humanity, past, present, and future. As a marriage is a spirit with a single body with more than one member, so is a city and a nation, and so is God. In our physical bodies, we can either be “in the flesh”, meaning our sense of self stops at our skin, or we can be “in the Spirit”, meaning our body corresponds to a larger sense of Self. God is Love in that love is the reconciling, binding force that makes the one, eternal body our own, and everyone our precious member. “We are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God [which is the Love of God, which is our love for the whole] dwell in us.” This is foolishness to our egos, which want “super-earthen vessels” of their own--so that the glory may be our own individual immortal life; but we all more or less have these larger Spirits too, and they too have ears. Stop comparing spiritual things with superphysical things, and do what Paul did (1 Cor 2:13).
@@aisthpaoitht Thanks! But other than the Bible rightly read, not that I’m aware of. As I mentioned, as it was pragmatically couched in the terms of the mystery, i.e., in the supernatural, and with the deeper meaning to be revealed only to the mature-as few matured, and as most of those who did eventually fell from their first love, the ego-killing (because larger-life-giving) gospel was declared heresy, and the introductory terms-of-the-mystery, the final truth. People liked the idea of their bodies rising from the dead. Anyway, some political thinkers have spoken of spiritual bodies, and of those, as far as I know, Rousseau came closest to the Christian concept. I don’t believe he ever made the connection, but that might have been on purpose. If you’re interested, I’m in the process of writing it down, and I do mention a number other thinkers who agreed in part. You can find the latest version free online at Godintheflesh. (I’d finish it with “dot com” but UA-cam doesn’t like that.) Two volumes of it are also on Amazon, but don’t bother as they need updated.
Another note on those who are speaking against the trends of universalism in recent theological discourse. The concern of those speaking against these trends is "pastoral". Such folks (e.g. Ralph Martin in his book Will Many Be Saved? and Edward Feser and Fr. Rooney and the Popes who have repeatedly warned about indifferentism) are motivated precisely out of love for those drawn into indifference over sin because of these dangerous opinions. Hard to get people to suffer the embarrassment of a good confession if they think that everyone is going to heaven regardless. And those who say "well it is possible that everyone is going to heaven" easily move to: most people are in fact going to heaven for otherwise God would be cruel. I have heard *precisely this argument* from a prominent adherent of VB and the comment was quickly deleted after it was posted. The fact that adherents of VB are moving in the direction of thinking that they know that most or all people are going to heaven should give pause to disciples of VB and to those who fawn over sophistry from the pen (or mouth) of DBH.
In my view, the pastoral concern falls flat on its face when one considers DBH's actual argument on universalism. Hart is not arguing that all people enter directly into the beatific vision at the moment of death. He isn't arguing that Jesus' statements about punishment, suffering, and destruction are wrong or untrue. Far from it. The key point is that the punishment is not eternal and never-ending, and it is geared toward the eventual purification of the sinner. If a person decides to sin profligately because "God will just save me in the end," that is silly, self-defeating, and ultimately will do nothing to escape the purgation and purification that a person must undergo to be freed from sin. Universalism is not a "get out of jail free card."
DBH would never admit any legitimate criticism of his work 😂 The book is not difficult to understand at all. Some scholars have offered strong critiques of this most overrated religious studies authority. Despite his massive head, he clearly doesn’t understand some of the critiques.
Dr. James P. Ware soundly refutes the idea of the Resurection Dr. Hart is articulating. He shows that by the Grammar of St. Paul's teaching in 1 Corintians 15, the body spoken of before the Resurection and after is the same body. He opposes Spiritual body and "psychic body" ie. a body animated simply by the human principle (soul, psuche/psyche) and one animated wholey, body and soul by God's Spirit (Pneuma). The article is "Paul's understanding of the Resurection in 1 Corinthians 15:36-54." He also summarizes the argument in his book, "Paul's Theology in Context." And just in general N. T. Wright is a much better Scholar of the Second Temple Judaism roots of Christianity. This idea of the spiritual body as something made of spiritual stuff was a gnostic concept only introduced into Orthodox circles by Origin, its wholey absent from the ideas of Resurection around in Apostolic times as Wright establishes in the "Resurection of the Son of God."
Sorry, that’s wrong. James Ware’s argument clearly does not match Paul’s language, and his unambiguous statement that flesh and blood have no share in the world to come.
I think he addresses the passage in the article. The negative use of sarx in St. Paul is something like what Hart blithely dismisses, our sinful nature and in this passage something like our mere humanity if it just relied on its self "mere flesh and blood" basically, as Paul says what is mortal (our body) must put on immortality. The mortal is on our side, immortality comes from God's grace and the power of the Spirit, ""that raised Jesus Christ from the dead."
In his article Ware never actually deals with Paul’s language of the body that does not being the same as the body that will be nor does he deal with Paul’s declaration that flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom. I’m working on an article now which also argues that Ware’s approach is correct in that the resurrection body is the same flesh and blood body that died - and for what it’s worth Origen says as much - but both resurrected bodies and bodies which have never perished are transformed into a spiritual substance. Thus one can affirm carnal resurrection so long as they recognize that it is followed by spiritual transformation. For what it’s worth I think this is what Origen actually argued for since one of his major points is that the body so resurrected but need not maintain the same composition since the body, much like a River, is never actually composed of the same physical elements over the course of its existence. When Moses turns the Nile to blood it is still the Nile River even though what courses through it has been transformed. So too the human body can subsists as any number of material elements besides flesh and blood and still be the “same”
You do realize that Zoom was so successful because pre 2020 no tech company was able to make video calls remotely as consistent as a phone call, right? And this is 2 years after that?
@@leavesinthewind7441 I meant to respond to the OP Jason, but it didn’t tag his name, my bad. Telling Jason not to complain too much ha. Audio rec error like that could happen for tons of reasons.
@@leavesinthewind7441 That actually makes sense! Of course, I was merely being a dork, not that I need to try! Just to be clear, I didn't mean for my comment to come across as rude or anything, nor was I complaining, which was seemingly interpreted as such. No harm, no foul hopefully!
Dr James Chastek 'JustThomism' "Hart seem to think that if analogy is likeness (which it is) then essential unlikeness destroys analogy. This looks like modus tollens but in fact is the fallacy of the accident: essential unlikeness in one respect is completely compatible with likeness in another respect, and this compatibility is essential to analogous naming. We can posit both intentions/ justice in God and describe them as having many things things absolutely antithetical and even impossible to human intention and justice as a virtue of the soul and, in fact, to specify that they belong to both creator and creature is already to have done so."
Clearly false. Any analogy between the goodness of creaturely virtue and divine goodness requires a common telos in the divine Good as well as a likeness in the conformity of both divine and human acts to that rationale. Chastek’s epistemological and moral nihilism (which is what it is) makes utter nonsense of Christ’s explicit instructions to his disciples regarding the analogy between God’s fatherhood and theirs, and in fact of every theological analogy in the gospels. Only Thomists are capable of arguments that deeply depraved.
@@leavesinthewind7441 It's clear you haven't comprehended the post for whatever reason. Restatement is not argument. So I'll direct your attention to the full source: "A mistake about analogy" Just Thomism blog.
@@stmartin17773 I have understood it perfectly. It is an assertion, not a solvent line of reasoning. It simply evacuates analogy of analogy by pretending that equivocity can function within analogy without disruption. Sure, there can be accidental differences between analogate and analogand. There cannot be essential contradictions between the rational or moral structures of what are predicated as good acts in God and in creatures without rendering all analogy meaningless. It is you who are misunderstanding the issue. And, again, Christ is clear on the analogical proportion between divine and human moral agency.
@@leavesinthewind7441 ? it is essential to the definition of analogy! "this compatibility is essential to analogous naming" I don't know what else to say to your assertion except that I just think you're pretending to understand analogy, apophatic theology and the doctrine of God. As a propaadeutic, list all New Covenant books' references to hell and its finality and ask yourself if your unprincipled use of analogy isn't a solvent dissolving the person of Christ and His Word.
@@stmartin17773 Apparently you can’t grasp the difference between accidental difference and essential contradiction. Unfortunate. But that’s actually an absolutely crucial distinction for any coherent notion of analogy.
Savage delight? And how DBH would you know the inner intentions of Thomists? And why, Dr. Chapp, would you be amused by calumny? Please read Edward Feser's recent post entitled Divine Freedom and heresy. Suggesting that a fellow Christian must delight in eternal suffering simply because he believes in the fact of eternal suffering is, again, calumny. Of course, no need to take sins against charity seriously if you think you are going to heaven no matter which commandment you flaut (in this instance it is the command to not bear false witness that is being treated contemptuously. Or would DBH have us actually believe that he knows the inner workings of certain Thomists?)
Please have milbank on!
"The NIV is the West Side Story
to Romeo and Juliet."
Brother you said a mouthful 1:13:59 l there... BLOODY BRILLIANT!
Love DB so much. His humble arrogance and loopy sense of humour warm the heart. And I agree Roland In Moonlight is wonderful.
Humble arrogance? Did you learn about this in your coursework studying square circles at non university U.?
@@AnselmInstitute ?
@@saturngenesis1306 !
agree or disagree with him, he can't be dismissed. very fun show, thanks DBH and Dr. Chapp
I love DBH interviews but the sound quality is always consistently so terrible it makes it frustrating to listen to. Still going on my watch list nonetheless...
It's the Webinar software, alas.
Agreed.
the archons were really fuckin with the audio here. i stuck throgh it. it made DBH sound like prophet, a techno prophet
Grow up.
pity the audio is terrible, there's gold here
Really, really bad distortion. Listening to it is physically painful. During the last 30-40 minutes, I had to take breaks from it just to give my ears and brain a rest!
wouldnt be a DBH interview otherwise
I love David Bentley Hart but he really needs to fix his microphone situation. Every interview I see of his there is a significant audio problem! I think using headphones would even be better. Anyways, great interview Larry!
Thanks for this. I'm from the hardcore calvinistic reformed tradition and I love Hart so far. I have been using his NT translation and find it increasingly useful and honest. I will be reading his book.
I love DBH and he certainly challenges many Catholics. While many like to say "I don't agree with everything he says", they may need to also consider if they met anyone where agreement was absolute. He is more right than not, and breathes much life to theology.
Good comment.
I hope DBH still allows himself to be challenged by good Catholics.
And he will be doing so unless he is truly and eternally superior to all of them.
I wonder if he is thus superior?
I wonder if he thinks he is?
All that knocking in the background was the noise of nailing the coffins of opposing theology
@Dr. Larry Chapp What exactly is your view on the presence of humans in hell or limbo, given the dogmatic definitions on both?
Funny thing is that Plato isn't as Platonic as people are inclined to assume. For example, Socrates wonders if the body is a prison for the soul whilst literally in a prison, awaiting the hemlock, and so which is his portal to immortal life. If you take the quote out of context the irony is missed: Plato's implication is that the body radiates eternity, and our true identity, if we have the eyes to see.
You are too confident in your opinion. World class Greek philosophy scholars have and continue to disagree with you on this.
@@bayreuth79 Lol you know Mark Vernon has a PhD in Platonic philosophy right? Doesn’t mean he’s correct of course, but he’s at least as qualified as any Greek philosophy scholar to speak about this
@@Durziage Thanks for the argument from authority, the weakest of all arguments. I can point to other authorities, much more famous authorities, who disagree with Vernon.
@@bayreuth79 I explicitly stated that his qualifications don’t mean he’s correct. Your initial comment is more of an argument from authority than mine. Good day to you.
@@Durziage my point though was not that he was wrong but that he was overconfident
What? Balthasar was a closet Universalist? I swear you say otherwise, and criticize Ralph Martin for uncharitably claiming so...
Hernandez Jennifer Martin William Thompson Frank
Garcia Paul Rodriguez Elizabeth Martin Scott
Gonzalez David Allen Jeffrey Davis Anthony
I screened this interview with great interest. Very absorbing discussion. I only wish the audio could be cleaned up. The distortion is absolutely Horrible to the point of pain, and it only gets worse in the last 30 or so minutes. I am sure the technology exists to remedy this problem. The distortion really drags on one's concentration whilst trying to listen to the interview. Please clean up the audio on this interview.
Wow it is really hard to find DBH interviews with decent audio quality. This one wins the award for combination of best interview with most annoying background noise. Why not just reachedule the interview for a time when there isnt a maniac loose with a hammer?
DBHs Hal Lindsay comment was priceless 😂
Dr Larry, I was so surprised you didn't ask the question which I felt was begging to be asked which is: If we are to be simply shed of the flesh at the resurrection, why oh why are we flesh at all? Isn't it a sheer waste of time? And what then is meant by "The Resurrection of the Body" in the creed?
Maybe I'm still thinking like a Cartesian...?
Just thought of this: Is this because this very "low" existence in the flesh is a necessity of coming into being from nothing...?
Nope...can't be. Because the angels came from nothing as well. The question remains.
I mean, this is true of anything that we do in our fallen condition. Was the Fall itself a waste of time since we will be restored? The Fall is what causes bodies to be fleshly. Flesh is like congealed light. In the Resurrection, the body is raised a spiritual, non-fleshly body of light. Consider the scriptural accounts and the four qualities that Aquinas attributes to the glorified body: it has impassibility, subtlety, agility, and clarity.
DBH is insufferably arrogant. It is an immediate red flag that something in his thought might be wrong, but is hidden under his ego. People are simply afraid to challenge him. I suspect that his work will get a rough treatment after he passes.
Yes, surely you, a layperson knows better
Is this the closest we've come to meeting the famous Roland? I wish so much to see him sitting next to David!
Love the discussion about spirit/matter/resurrection bodies . . .
Does anyone know which article it is that Hart wrote talking about the resurrection narratives?
I would like to hear David's thoughts on Nick Land
DBH disagrees with NT Wright about some things.
NT Wright, says DBH, is averse to those disagreeing with him.
DBH thus suggesting he is open to serious disagreement.
Ehhhhh ??? Is this a joke ???
@@chanting_germ. Thank you so much Mr Zebra for this generous compliment.
This needs a transcript; the audio just isn't good enough
whaaat... slamming this into my watch later list.
Big DBH fan?
@@naturegrace7134 I'm open to both Chapp and DBH here in many ways.
Have you watched it yet?
twice now.
Then he never understood rabbi Yeshua in the first place, radical Torah observance not its abandonment - that was his teaching!
Great discussion- thank yall!
This seems to be a discussion held in a private language.
It's transcendent for sure, but not in an absolute good way.
I found myself reaching for my Occam brand razor.
Fun listen, even so.
30:50 : kudos to Hart for the intellectual honesty of mentioning Annihilationism as a possibility of what is taught in Scripture
DB is a towering intellect which puts Roman orthodoxy on its back feet. He is so quick that to argue against him is to lose by our lesser light. He has many good insights. He is provocative. He may be too smart. I studied with Brian Daley and Dan Harrington at Weston which allowed me to appreciate his comments on Paul, early gnostic ethos and resurrection. Anyway we all need a gadfly..
will i still be able to draw and paint in my spirit body in heaven? Creating art is my favourite thing to do
By "flesh and blood" Paul seems to intend a body that can die and is mortal or perishable, not that the physical flesh won't be resurrected. Read the surrounding context which connects flesh and blood to death:
1 Corinthians 15:50-56
Now I say this, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [a]the perishable inherit [b]the imperishable. 51 Behold, I am telling you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [d]imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written: “Death has been swallowed up in victory. 55 Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;
So when Jesus talks about people being thrown into the fire prepared for "the devil and his angels," he's saying the burning garbage pit of Gehenna was made for throwing fallen angels into it?? Weird flex but alright.
If I may compare this very interesting exchange with one that occurred between Prof Hart and Prof Milbank about 12 months ago, I suggest to both Dr Hart and Prof Hart that each of them might be in need of physiotherapeutic or chiropractic attention because this level of mutual back slapping may have damaged muscles, tendons, or even your spines. Be careful !!!
unfortunate that the sound quality was so uneven towards the end especially
1:31:55 I have a feeling I know who he's talking about lol
Universalist Christianity using the alternate definition of as Christ as being ‘an emanation of pure spirit on earth’ - sounds an awful lot like the Vedante/Yogi’s understanding Avatar beings.
As does the idea of powers and principalities sound a lot like the various astral layers of the universe in Vedante/Buddhism.
.
Just goes to show - we are all talking about the same things at the end of the day 🙏🏼
@Oskar You are making a case for scrupulous discernment and hierarchical categorizations of spiritual 'taxonomy' . Of which I said nothing against.
However - we should also be careful not to get swept away in a never ending regress of discernments - as the male mind- in particular likes to do. Lest we forget that existential connection to Love - the font of Creation -- is the point. Not endless intellectual swordsmanship.
The heart should power the mind. But that is not the case with most smart people.
I've studied a great deal - and the Eastern idea of the Unity of Consciousness + Avatar beings is a great source of intersection between east and western religious approaches. We can honor Christ as much as we want within that paradigm. All Yogi's/Vedantics/Buddhists honor Christ. Some even put him in the center of their worship icons - and consider him a Prime Avatar - or Oversoul Avatar. These are beings - one per planet - who are the highest manifestations of the Godhead into worldly form.
But again - the Vedic texts always mention planets, and soul cycles in a universal context. Which - in the modern world - with UFO disclosure soon coming - feels right to me.
@Oskar I would simply call the most big 'thing' the singular source of I AM - aka God. Which is then particularized by the devil or the mayanic force - that force which pulls apart the ONE, good and true. Christ Consciousness is the magnetic contact point between the inneffable singular ONE - and the manifest fallen world. The infinitely loving and endlessly resourceful magnet that pulls all souls back into the fold of the One (through many life times most likely) such that each soul gets a rich and complete roller coaster ride through the material and back into the Infinite. It is through the Christ Consciousness' purity that aligns the material world in Grace - that allows us to return.
Many easterners take the view that the devil or Maya is, at the highest pitch - is actually God's companion - allowing it/him to experience the structure, fullness and richness of the material and astral cosmos. Otherwise 'it' would simply be alone. Yes the material world is fallen (it is not the Completeness of the ONE) -- but at the same time it is what creates something rather than nothing at all.
This is the Divine Feminine force - that aspect of God which actually enjoys being pushed, stretched, and expanded. This is the wombic, birthing aspect of Creation. And the easterners also emphasize this, rightfully in my opinion.
Almost impossible to listen with all these scraping microphone noises. Pretty sure it's DBH's mic. It's such a shame. I'll have to wait for the transcript, should someone have the patience to make one.
No one’s microphone. It was the connection on the platform.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Are you quite sure? It sounds like a particular kind of sound endemic to certain failing condenser mics. The sound quality of your microphone has generally been far higher, even apart from the added noise. I'll try listening again; don't want to miss a word!
@@worldnotworld But both our voices break up at the end, so I don’t think it can be the mike. But I’m not sure.
@@leavesinthewind7441 It's a very different phenomenon, acoustically, the effect on Chapp. If you're doing more of these I'd recommend swapping out your microphone, at least as a test. As it is, we have the sonic equivalent of some wretched 8-point Calabria font printed smudgily by a faulty dot-matrix printer...
@@worldnotworld Honestly, his microphone cut through the ostinato more powerfully, but both voices are disrupted in the recording. And it’s odd that neither of us heard any problem at the time.
STOP jiggling mic. PLEASE.
Sometimes DBH is his own worst enemy. He goes from Crystal clear articulation of his view to vague self-sabotaging mumblings of his views, and then he complains that people don’t understand him.
what? the reason i love DBH is the man is crystal clear. he very swiftly and sometimes arrogantly cuts to the bone of the matter
@@littlebrotha123 Er, look at how badly people *misunderstood* his “You Are Gods,” and his “That All Shall be Saved.”
And the way he answered RLK’s question on whether there’s a soul- in context, it’s obvious what Kuhn was asking.
1:23:48 bookmark
Can’t listen with the incessant mic noise... amateur mistake. Bless you for trying.
Look, you condescending twit, the noises were not caused by anything on our end. It was not a microphone problem. I have been using LiveWebinar as the platform and it is not a computer or even cloud based processing format, but an off site server processes the video. And lately the processing has been awful and what I get back are videos with bizarre noises that were not there from our end. I do not recommend LiveWebinar to anyone and have stopped using it myself. And I could not have asked someone of David Hart's statue to do the whole interview over again. With someone in as much of a demand as he is, you get one shot. So I went with what I had.
@@gaudiumetspes22dr.larrycha26 if you’d like, I could clean up the audio & send it you. I’d be happy to, just let me know!
@@gaudiumetspes22dr.larrycha26that's not very charitable to call him a twit
There is a common and sinful calumny that comes from the recent disciples of VB used here by DBH that those who believe that hell is and will be occupied want people to be in hell. Those who believe hell is occupied are like greedy misers counting coins, but instead they are counting the number of souls in hell and delighting in every enumeration of an additional soul. Those who make these calumnious accusations will answer to the judge of the living and the dead whether or not they believe in the final judgement. The convenient thing about being a universalist is that you can ignore Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor in charitable discourse and can look upon everyone who disagrees with you as an idiot (e.g. Mr. Hart speaking of evangelicals with disdain as though they are intellectual simpletons). The inconvenient part about being a universalist is that you will answer to the judge of the living and the dead for the damnable consequences of such a lack of charity. In my estimation, the inconvenient part heavily outweighs the convenient part.
So now to address this calumny. The reason that I care about this issue is the same reason that the popes who condemned indifferentism care about it. I care about the issue because I care about souls and it is extremely dangerous for people to believe that no one will (or may) ultimately be in hell. It makes Christ's warnings vacuous. It makes the two ways noted in the Didache and the warning abouts life and death in Deuteronomy vacuous. A child that knows his dad will never spank him even though the dad threatens a spanking will at least be tempted to despise his father knowing that he will never make good on his threats. Viewing God as indulgent of our sins such that He makes threats that will never be realized in any instance is completely absurd. It is rooted neither in reason nor revelation.
The claim that those who believe in apokatastasis either do not believe in hell or believe no one ever goes there is textbook calumny. It is hard to take seriously someone who projects onto others of what they themselves do.
@@shawnm4189 And where did I say that all who believe in apokatastasis don't believe in hell? You are projecting your own imagination onto the computer screen.
@jmichaelcopas
"I care about souls and it is extremely dangerous for people to believe that no one will (or may) ultimately be in hell."
Your words. From there you go into the usual tired litany of how God's words would be useless if he did not essentially torment people into infinity for their sins and furthermore, that if God failed to punish people in perpetuity that means no real punishment at all. These are standard infernalist arguments and they are very weak intellectually and ethically not just Scripturally.
Look, if you think the apokatastasis involves God having an indulgence for our sins and not chastising us for them in various ways, then you flat out do not understand the concept at all.
@@shawnm4189 Yes those are my words. And those words do not say what you are hell bent on reading into them. They do not deny that those who believe in apokatastasis may also believe in hell or that it is temporarily populated by people. So, again, your overactive imagination is hard at work.
You also asserted without any support or argumentation that the argument I provided was intellectually weak. Two things in response. First, stating that an argument is weak does precisely zero to actually demonstrate that an argument is weak. So you have done nothing to show that there is anything at all wrong with the argument. You have just made a question begging assertion.
Second, St Augustine and St. Thomas, two of the greatest figures in the Christian intellectual tradition, held that hell is populated with humans paying the eternal consequences for their sins. To suggest that those holding such positions must be simpletons is sheer nonsense. That sort of suggestion might impress sophists and DBH's lap dogs but it is not going to be taken seriously anywhere else.
You also suggested that they are weak Scripturally. Wow. I must be in the presence of a real bible scholar here. What, may I ask, makes you think you are in a good position to make such claims. Have you taken the time to learn Hebrew? What about Greek? Latin? No? Well then stop pretending.
I have learned all three languages and have translated the entire NT as well as the first four books of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and the Greek of the LXX and the suggestion that the traditional belief in hell lacks Scriptural support is more nonsense. So why don't you stop pretending.
I wish this guy would just make his case. Stop referring to all the important stuff and giving us bits of filler. It's a new age.. most of us don't have time to read your book. Please make your case on video and answer all of the counter-arguments.
Read his books
DBHs work is meat, you’re still on milk
The misunderstanding here is profound. It was also from the beginning in that it was the introductory message found on the surface of the Gospels, all of which pragmatically hid-with the god of this world-the hidden wisdom Paul preached more or less openly.
A marriage (past, present and future) is a spiritual body. So is a family and a city and a nation. So is humanity, past, present, and future. As a marriage is a spirit with a single body with more than one member, so is a city and a nation, and so is God.
In our physical bodies, we can either be “in the flesh”, meaning our sense of self stops at our skin, or we can be “in the Spirit”, meaning our body corresponds to a larger sense of Self. God is Love in that love is the reconciling, binding force that makes the one, eternal body our own, and everyone our precious member. “We are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God [which is the Love of God, which is our love for the whole] dwell in us.”
This is foolishness to our egos, which want “super-earthen vessels” of their own--so that the glory may be our own individual immortal life; but we all more or less have these larger Spirits too, and they too have ears.
Stop comparing spiritual things with superphysical things, and do what Paul did (1 Cor 2:13).
Beautiful. Can you recommend any authors or scholars that talk about this view? Thank you!
@@aisthpaoitht Thanks!
But other than the Bible rightly read, not that I’m aware of. As I mentioned, as it was pragmatically couched in the terms of the mystery, i.e., in the supernatural, and with the deeper meaning to be revealed only to the mature-as few matured, and as most of those who did eventually fell from their first love, the ego-killing (because larger-life-giving) gospel was declared heresy, and the introductory terms-of-the-mystery, the final truth. People liked the idea of their bodies rising from the dead.
Anyway, some political thinkers have spoken of spiritual bodies, and of those, as far as I know, Rousseau came closest to the Christian concept. I don’t believe he ever made the connection, but that might have been on purpose.
If you’re interested, I’m in the process of writing it down, and I do mention a number other thinkers who agreed in part. You can find the latest version free online at Godintheflesh. (I’d finish it with “dot com” but UA-cam doesn’t like that.) Two volumes of it are also on Amazon, but don’t bother as they need updated.
Another note on those who are speaking against the trends of universalism in recent theological discourse. The concern of those speaking against these trends is "pastoral". Such folks (e.g. Ralph Martin in his book Will Many Be Saved? and Edward Feser and Fr. Rooney and the Popes who have repeatedly warned about indifferentism) are motivated precisely out of love for those drawn into indifference over sin because of these dangerous opinions. Hard to get people to suffer the embarrassment of a good confession if they think that everyone is going to heaven regardless. And those who say "well it is possible that everyone is going to heaven" easily move to: most people are in fact going to heaven for otherwise God would be cruel. I have heard *precisely this argument* from a prominent adherent of VB and the comment was quickly deleted after it was posted. The fact that adherents of VB are moving in the direction of thinking that they know that most or all people are going to heaven should give pause to disciples of VB and to those who fawn over sophistry from the pen (or mouth) of DBH.
In my view, the pastoral concern falls flat on its face when one considers DBH's actual argument on universalism. Hart is not arguing that all people enter directly into the beatific vision at the moment of death. He isn't arguing that Jesus' statements about punishment, suffering, and destruction are wrong or untrue. Far from it. The key point is that the punishment is not eternal and never-ending, and it is geared toward the eventual purification of the sinner.
If a person decides to sin profligately because "God will just save me in the end," that is silly, self-defeating, and ultimately will do nothing to escape the purgation and purification that a person must undergo to be freed from sin. Universalism is not a "get out of jail free card."
@@smokybirch6626 Your right. It is silly. So is the suggestion that the suffering of hell is temporal rather than eternal.
DBH would never admit any legitimate criticism of his work 😂 The book is not difficult to understand at all. Some scholars have offered strong critiques of this most overrated religious studies authority. Despite his massive head, he clearly doesn’t understand some of the critiques.
Insufferably smug theologian alert. Poor DBH. Not a shadow of self-doubt doth ever cross the brightness of his opinion to all appearances.
Dr. James P. Ware soundly refutes the idea of the Resurection Dr. Hart is articulating. He shows that by the Grammar of St. Paul's teaching in 1 Corintians 15, the body spoken of before the Resurection and after is the same body. He opposes Spiritual body and "psychic body" ie. a body animated simply by the human principle (soul, psuche/psyche) and one animated wholey, body and soul by God's Spirit (Pneuma). The article is "Paul's understanding of the Resurection in 1 Corinthians 15:36-54." He also summarizes the argument in his book, "Paul's Theology in Context." And just in general N. T. Wright is a much better Scholar of the Second Temple Judaism roots of Christianity. This idea of the spiritual body as something made of spiritual stuff was a gnostic concept only introduced into Orthodox circles by Origin, its wholey absent from the ideas of Resurection around in Apostolic times as Wright establishes in the "Resurection of the Son of God."
Wrong
Sorry, that’s wrong. James Ware’s argument clearly does not match Paul’s language, and his unambiguous statement that flesh and blood have no share in the world to come.
I think he addresses the passage in the article. The negative use of sarx in St. Paul is something like what Hart blithely dismisses, our sinful nature and in this passage something like our mere humanity if it just relied on its self "mere flesh and blood" basically, as Paul says what is mortal (our body) must put on immortality. The mortal is on our side, immortality comes from God's grace and the power of the Spirit, ""that raised Jesus Christ from the dead."
In his article Ware never actually deals with Paul’s language of the body that does not being the same as the body that will be nor does he deal with Paul’s declaration that flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom.
I’m working on an article now which also argues that Ware’s approach is correct in that the resurrection body is the same flesh and blood body that died - and for what it’s worth Origen says as much - but both resurrected bodies and bodies which have never perished are transformed into a spiritual substance. Thus one can affirm carnal resurrection so long as they recognize that it is followed by spiritual transformation.
For what it’s worth I think this is what Origen actually argued for since one of his major points is that the body so resurrected but need not maintain the same composition since the body, much like a River, is never actually composed of the same physical elements over the course of its existence. When Moses turns the Nile to blood it is still the Nile River even though what courses through it has been transformed. So too the human body can subsists as any number of material elements besides flesh and blood and still be the “same”
@Oskar I think you’ve misunderstood Behr’s perspective rather thoroughly.
Great interview! I liked when the vocals got really robotic-like toward the last quarter of the discussion!
Apparently the "Webinar" platform in Poland has been problematic since the Ukraine war began (maybe they used to employ Ukrainian servers).
You do realize that Zoom was so successful because pre 2020 no tech company was able to make video calls remotely as consistent as a phone call, right? And this is 2 years after that?
@@leavesinthewind7441 I meant to respond to the OP Jason, but it didn’t tag his name, my bad. Telling Jason not to complain too much ha. Audio rec error like that could happen for tons of reasons.
@@leavesinthewind7441 That actually makes sense! Of course, I was merely being a dork, not that I need to try! Just to be clear, I didn't mean for my comment to come across as rude or anything, nor was I complaining, which was seemingly interpreted as such. No harm, no foul hopefully!
@@RootinrPootine I wasn't complaining, just being a goof.
Dr James Chastek 'JustThomism' "Hart seem to think that if analogy is likeness (which it is) then essential unlikeness destroys analogy. This looks like modus tollens but in fact is the fallacy of the accident: essential unlikeness in one respect is completely compatible with likeness in another respect, and this compatibility is essential to analogous naming. We can posit both intentions/ justice in God and describe them as having many things things absolutely antithetical and even impossible to human intention and justice as a virtue of the soul and, in fact, to specify that they belong to both creator and creature is already to have done so."
Clearly false. Any analogy between the goodness of creaturely virtue and divine goodness requires a common telos in the divine Good as well as a likeness in the conformity of both divine and human acts to that rationale. Chastek’s epistemological and moral nihilism (which is what it is) makes utter nonsense of Christ’s explicit instructions to his disciples regarding the analogy between God’s fatherhood and theirs, and in fact of every theological analogy in the gospels.
Only Thomists are capable of arguments that deeply depraved.
@@leavesinthewind7441 It's clear you haven't comprehended the post for whatever reason. Restatement is not argument. So I'll direct your attention to the full source: "A mistake about analogy" Just Thomism blog.
@@stmartin17773 I have understood it perfectly. It is an assertion, not a solvent line of reasoning. It simply evacuates analogy of analogy by pretending that equivocity can function within analogy without disruption. Sure, there can be accidental differences between analogate and analogand. There cannot be essential contradictions between the rational or moral structures of what are predicated as good acts in God and in creatures without rendering all analogy meaningless. It is you who are misunderstanding the issue. And, again, Christ is clear on the analogical proportion between divine and human moral agency.
@@leavesinthewind7441 ? it is essential to the definition of analogy! "this compatibility is essential to analogous naming" I don't know what else to say to your assertion except that I just think you're pretending to understand analogy, apophatic theology and the doctrine of God. As a propaadeutic, list all New Covenant books' references to hell and its finality and ask yourself if your unprincipled use of analogy isn't a solvent dissolving the person of Christ and His Word.
@@stmartin17773 Apparently you can’t grasp the difference between accidental difference and essential contradiction. Unfortunate. But that’s actually an absolutely crucial distinction for any coherent notion of analogy.
Savage delight? And how DBH would you know the inner intentions of Thomists? And why, Dr. Chapp, would you be amused by calumny? Please read Edward Feser's recent post entitled Divine Freedom and heresy. Suggesting that a fellow Christian must delight in eternal suffering simply because he believes in the fact of eternal suffering is, again, calumny. Of course, no need to take sins against charity seriously if you think you are going to heaven no matter which commandment you flaut (in this instance it is the command to not bear false witness that is being treated contemptuously. Or would DBH have us actually believe that he knows the inner workings of certain Thomists?)
who is the young Thomist with a supposedly shallow understanding of the theological tradition that DBH is referring to?