Funny seeing a channel I love posting here! In Derrida's terms, I also "pass" as an atheist at times, but agreed that Hart is often thoughtful and thought-provoking (though I imagine hard to follow for someone not engaged with some of these conversations), if a bit socially awkward at times. A better writer than speaker, to be sure, but so was Saint Paul.
@@feelin_fine absolutely agree. I think Hart is definitely socially awkward - but also witty as hell (excuse the pun). When it comes to modern theist scholars or theologians, Hart - for me - is by far the best writer.
Why do people keep commenting with “Can someone tell DBH to read... such and such”? The guy is a distinguished professor in theology and philosophy at the Advanced Studies center of Notre Dame. He has probably read anything you think of twice.
Me too. The implication of creation ex nihilism and the implications for what a free choice actually is have given me a level of joy I thought impossible
David Bentley-Hart: erudition; sophistication; intelligence. Also, a helluva vocabulary and a breadth of learning that is absolutely intimidating. I'm not a declared Thomist myself, but I'll be damned before I let such a man talk me out of something I've never even properly considered. I'm glad he's basically "on our side," but he strikes me as a bit too smart for his own good.
ObjectiveBob No, not from what I've read of him. I think he's truly a Christian, Eastern Orthodox by confession. His command of rhetoric is such that he could probably argue either side of a philosophical or religious question persuasively. Perhaps that's what makes him appear cynical and unbelieving sometimes; his intellectual sophistication could easily devolve into mere sophistry. But I seriously respect him and am genuinely happy that he generally uses his considerable talents for good purposes.
trenparsifal This is an asinine comment. He’s an Eastern Orthodox Christian, who is in his own words “more taken with the Person of Christ the older I get.” He confesses the truth of what St. Paul articulates as “the gospel” in 1 Corinthians 15. How about let’s hear your exegesis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians? Christ is the exegesis of the Law, just as He is the exegesis of the Father (John 5:39; John 1:18). The Apostle Paul teaches in Romans 13:8-10 that all of the Lord’s commandments under the Law are summed up in the one to love our neighbor as ourself. Christ gives us the power to love others when we put our trust in Him.
The transcript is available through RUclips. 1. Below the media player, to the right of "save", there are three dots spaced horizontally. Left-click them. 2. Thre options will appear in a drop-down menu. Click "open transcript".
@@The_Scouts_Code Thanks a lot! Didn't know that function was available. I found that you can c&p the running transcript into a file and edit that. Not sure how legal that is, you might want to look into it.
I adore Hart's thought and work. However, I think it is important to recognize (as he does without articulating it as such) that hart is a theologian with great knowledge of Eastern Orthodox Theology. He may even be a paying member of an Eastern Orthodox church. However, he is not an Eastern Orthodox Theologian - which is OK by my book. But, he alludes to it several times when he gives talks like this. And, I think it is an important distinction.
Everytime this guy gives a presentation, he always prefaces it by saying that he is "sick" or "recovering from the flu" or something like that. Is it just to lower expectations, or his immune system that weak? But yes, I do enjoy listening to Dr. Hart, but his books are much better than his talks.
Do you ever wish God would just TELL you what’s going on here instead of having to drudge through a lifetime of obscurities and dead-ends all while suffering through life in order to make a living and create a family? It seems rather contrived that He would conceal himself so thoroughly.
@@kylepfeifer6576 I understand that, but I was talking here about when people make religious claims. Obviously the manifestation of beings is the clearest expression anyone could possibly want of God’s presence (within and without them), but as regards some special revelation- that is what my comment was directed at.
@@whoami8434 If you've already explored the spiritual tradition concerning spiritual dryness and darkness, disregard this.... But all Christians feel distant from God sometimes and want more clarity; indeed, the spiritual writers say that it's a normal development of Faith, Hope and Charity to suffer through this. God does this to us, because we need to learn that Christ is the only revelation we truly need. The only response is to continue to trust and love; and it is *in that darkness* that we grow closer to Him. It feels painful, but it's the only way for the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity to become more firmly rooted.
This guy speaks and writes as if he is only speaking to other PHDs, he comes to theology from an eastern perspective, and his adjectives are obscure, to say the least.
Eric Day He does approach theology from an Eastern perspective, but he is well acquainted with Western theologians and philosophers. DBH possesses an enormous vocabulary, and he wields it effectively.
@@karcharias811 Come on then, let's see your list of examples of his sophistry throughout this talk. Obviously you consider yourself someone who "cares to think" so I await your in-depth breakdown of his sophistry with baited breath...
@@Joeonline26 I don't remember saying that I was referring to anything he said here. You have eisegetically understood my words. His sophistry is in most of his writing.
@@karcharias811 Oh I see, you couldn't come up with any examples in this particular talk so you retreat and say that the sophistry is in his writing. Come on then, we're all waiting for your long list of examples of sophistry in his books. Which 3 books would you like to begin with? Did you think you could dodge the topic that easily?😉
does this theologian/philosopher believe in heretical universal reconciliation? or does he just have sympathy for the heresy like some annihilationalist.
+Breckmin i'm sure he could answer that if you asked him directly, but I would not infer his "sympathy for the heresy like some annihilation list." Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "heretical universal reconciliation "if you expect any productive reply on this thread.
+Breckmin If his belief in universal reconciliation makes DBH a heretic, then Gregory of Nyssa was a heretic, Gregory Nazianzus was a heretic, Maximus the Confessor was a heretic, Origen of Alexandria was a heretic, Clement of Alexandria was a heretic, Diodorus of Tarsus was a heretic, Isaac of Nineva was a heretic, John Scotus Eriugena was a heretic, Julian of Norwich was a heretic, then Karl Barth is a heretic, Karl Rahner is a heretic, Hans Urs von Balthasar is a heretic - Church Fathers, Mothers, and theologians throughout Christian history who were never denounced for their universalism but embraced and continue to be embraced.
Pilato Theologian Karl Barth had a hope of UR... but not an affirmation nor denial of it. That's not the only thing Barth was confused about, btw. I fully agree that most of the people on your list are indeed heretics and should NOT be allowed to teach their confusion to the flock. If there is no opposite condition to be saved from in eternity... then there is no such thing as "salvation" as it relates to being saved from something real. Question everything. Question when salvation is wrongfully turned into inevitable fate... and grace (in contrast to justice) loses its meaning.
An eternal opposite position is a form of zoroastrianism. And my point was all those theologians mentioned were never declared heretics for their positions. Universalism was a viable and acceptable position in the early church. Grace is only grace when it is all-consummating. The restoration of all things does not demean grace, for it gives the most glory to God to be able to save even the most wayward.
"were never declared heretics for their positions." Lie. Just look at 15 anathemas against Origen. Of course if there is no contrast to grace it diminishes its meaning... if everyone is saved it becomes inevitable fate and the word "salvation" is meaningless because there is nothing REAL to be saved "from" (no opposite condition to point to)
As an atheist, both Hart’s approach and take on God are without a doubt the most convincing for me.
Good point. Imagine what it does for me being a Christian. 😁😁
All the best to you. 🙂
Funny seeing a channel I love posting here! In Derrida's terms, I also "pass" as an atheist at times, but agreed that Hart is often thoughtful and thought-provoking (though I imagine hard to follow for someone not engaged with some of these conversations), if a bit socially awkward at times. A better writer than speaker, to be sure, but so was Saint Paul.
@@feelin_fine absolutely agree. I think Hart is definitely socially awkward - but also witty as hell (excuse the pun). When it comes to modern theist scholars or theologians, Hart - for me - is by far the best writer.
Did he provide proof?
Hart espouses classical theology - the most basic definition of religion or belief in God as it existed for thousands of years.
Why do people keep commenting with “Can someone tell DBH to read... such and such”? The guy is a distinguished professor in theology and philosophy at the Advanced Studies center of Notre Dame. He has probably read anything you think of twice.
He doesn’t reference some relevant folk and ideas in his work. For example Laruelle and non-philosophy.
David Bentley Hart has unveiled the truth in my soul in such a pure way . Truth with depths of logic and reason . Thank you Lord Jesus . Amen .
Me too. The implication of creation ex nihilism and the implications for what a free choice actually is have given me a level of joy I thought impossible
An impressive communicator. This guy is one of the most articulate speakers I've heard since Terence.
Terrence who?
@@The_Scouts_Code Terrence McKenna, I would guess.
Beautiful talk.
I've loved Hart's books as well.
He seems to delight in the artistry of his words ...
Wow, this is very dense, but not dull.
My brain needs a break, but my sense of the importance of beauty for human life is bolstered!
This is beautiful and fascinating. God! Beyond words!
This is great! Thanks for posting. I love the writings and contributions DBH. I'm looking forward to his new book that is set to come out this fall.
Good talk, pretty interesting. Fantastic philosopher.
David Bentley-Hart: erudition; sophistication; intelligence. Also, a helluva vocabulary and a breadth of learning that is absolutely intimidating. I'm not a declared Thomist myself, but I'll be damned before I let such a man talk me out of something I've never even properly considered. I'm glad he's basically "on our side," but he strikes me as a bit too smart for his own good.
ObjectiveBob No, not from what I've read of him. I think he's truly a Christian, Eastern Orthodox by confession. His command of rhetoric is such that he could probably argue either side of a philosophical or religious question persuasively. Perhaps that's what makes him appear cynical and unbelieving sometimes; his intellectual sophistication could easily devolve into mere sophistry. But I seriously respect him and am genuinely happy that he generally uses his considerable talents for good purposes.
Too smart for his own good?
trenparsifal This is an asinine comment. He’s an Eastern Orthodox Christian, who is in his own words “more taken with the Person of Christ the older I get.” He confesses the truth of what St. Paul articulates as “the gospel” in 1 Corinthians 15.
How about let’s hear your exegesis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians?
Christ is the exegesis of the Law, just as He is the exegesis of the Father (John 5:39; John 1:18).
The Apostle Paul teaches in Romans 13:8-10 that all of the Lord’s commandments under the Law are summed up in the one to love our neighbor as ourself. Christ gives us the power to love others when we put our trust in Him.
Succinctly. The greatest Beauty would be in the sensation of love, and herein, experiencing His Divine Love
Does anyone have a transcript of this? Some of the language is so precise and well put.
The transcript is available through RUclips.
1. Below the media player, to the right of "save", there are three dots spaced horizontally. Left-click them.
2. Thre options will appear in a drop-down menu. Click "open transcript".
Make your own if not.
@@The_Scouts_Code Thanks a lot! Didn't know that function was available. I found that you can c&p the running transcript into a file and edit that. Not sure how legal that is, you might want to look into it.
I would read his first book which is on this subject, or portions of The Experience of God
I adore Hart's thought and work. However, I think it is important to recognize (as he does without articulating it as such) that hart is a theologian with great knowledge of Eastern Orthodox Theology. He may even be a paying member of an Eastern Orthodox church. However, he is not an Eastern Orthodox Theologian - which is OK by my book. But, he alludes to it several times when he gives talks like this. And, I think it is an important distinction.
Who else immediately searched youtube for that Carmen Mcrae version of Take Five?
Eloquence & humor?
I'llll take it!
What in my thinking is not "wantonly nebulous"?
Wonderful speaker.
Everytime this guy gives a presentation, he always prefaces it by saying that he is "sick" or "recovering from the flu" or something like that. Is it just to lower expectations, or his immune system that weak? But yes, I do enjoy listening to Dr. Hart, but his books are much better than his talks.
Yes he does seem sick a lot, yes.
I believe he does suffer from a respiratory illness.
Yes, he suffers from a pretty serious chronic condition. It's a wonder he's been able to write and lecture at all.
Would rabbi yeshua ben yosef understand him? Probably not.
too smart for his own good? lets smart-up and not dumb-down!
Sarah S Amen, Sarah.
Then he never understood rabbi Yeshua in the first place, radical Torah observance not its abandonment - that was his teaching!
Boy, is Wayne Grudem not going to be happy to hear any of this.
Do you ever wish God would just TELL you what’s going on here instead of having to drudge through a lifetime of obscurities and dead-ends all while suffering through life in order to make a living and create a family? It seems rather contrived that He would conceal himself so thoroughly.
I've never understood the "concealed" argument.
Since He is Being Itself, He is closer to us than our own heart-beat.
@@kylepfeifer6576
I understand that, but I was talking here about when people make religious claims. Obviously the manifestation of beings is the clearest expression anyone could possibly want of God’s presence (within and without them), but as regards some special revelation- that is what my comment was directed at.
@@whoami8434 If you've already explored the spiritual tradition concerning spiritual dryness and darkness, disregard this....
But all Christians feel distant from God sometimes and want more clarity; indeed, the spiritual writers say that it's a normal development of Faith, Hope and Charity to suffer through this.
God does this to us, because we need to learn that Christ is the only revelation we truly need.
The only response is to continue to trust and love; and it is *in that darkness* that we grow closer to Him. It feels painful, but it's the only way for the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity to become more firmly rooted.
30:20
10:42 "teneibrâs"?
Tenebrous.
This guy speaks and writes as if he is only speaking to other PHDs, he comes to theology from an eastern perspective, and his adjectives are obscure, to say the least.
Eric Day He does approach theology from an Eastern perspective, but he is well acquainted with Western theologians and philosophers. DBH possesses an enormous vocabulary, and he wields it effectively.
A Sophist if there ever was one, and that is not a compliment.
Of course, labelling him a sophist rather than contending with what he has to say is the easy option. Why am I not surprised?🤦♂️
@@Joeonline26 It's not merely a label when he engages in demonstrable sophistry. Anyone can see it for themselves who cares to think.
@@karcharias811 Come on then, let's see your list of examples of his sophistry throughout this talk. Obviously you consider yourself someone who "cares to think" so I await your in-depth breakdown of his sophistry with baited breath...
@@Joeonline26 I don't remember saying that I was referring to anything he said here. You have eisegetically understood my words. His sophistry is in most of his writing.
@@karcharias811 Oh I see, you couldn't come up with any examples in this particular talk so you retreat and say that the sophistry is in his writing. Come on then, we're all waiting for your long list of examples of sophistry in his books. Which 3 books would you like to begin with? Did you think you could dodge the topic that easily?😉
What is Biola doing hosting this heretic? I am sure Torrey would not approve.
does this theologian/philosopher believe in heretical universal reconciliation?
or does he just have sympathy for the heresy like some annihilationalist.
+Breckmin i'm sure he could answer that if you asked him directly, but I would not infer his "sympathy for the heresy like some annihilation list." Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "heretical universal reconciliation "if you expect any productive reply on this thread.
+Breckmin If his belief in universal reconciliation makes DBH a heretic, then Gregory of Nyssa was a heretic, Gregory Nazianzus was a heretic, Maximus the Confessor was a heretic, Origen of Alexandria was a heretic, Clement of Alexandria was a heretic, Diodorus of Tarsus was a heretic, Isaac of Nineva was a heretic, John Scotus Eriugena was a heretic, Julian of Norwich was a heretic, then Karl Barth is a heretic, Karl Rahner is a heretic, Hans Urs von Balthasar is a heretic - Church Fathers, Mothers, and theologians throughout Christian history who were never denounced for their universalism but embraced and continue to be embraced.
Pilato Theologian
Karl Barth had a hope of UR... but not an affirmation nor denial of it. That's not the only thing Barth was confused about, btw.
I fully agree that most of the people on your list are indeed heretics and should NOT be allowed to teach their confusion to the flock. If there is no opposite condition to be saved from in eternity... then there is no such thing as "salvation" as it relates to being saved from something real.
Question everything. Question when salvation is wrongfully turned into inevitable fate... and grace (in contrast to justice) loses its meaning.
An eternal opposite position is a form of zoroastrianism. And my point was all those theologians mentioned were never declared heretics for their positions. Universalism was a viable and acceptable position in the early church. Grace is only grace when it is all-consummating. The restoration of all things does not demean grace, for it gives the most glory to God to be able to save even the most wayward.
"were never declared heretics for their positions."
Lie. Just look at 15 anathemas against Origen.
Of course if there is no contrast to grace it diminishes its meaning... if everyone is saved it becomes inevitable fate and the word "salvation" is meaningless because there is nothing REAL to be saved "from" (no opposite condition to point to)