Predetermined Universal Salvation for All?
Why David Bentley Hart's Critique of the Free Will Defence Fails
In David Bentley Hart’s That All shall be Saved, the author argues strongly for universalism - the view that, in the end, all will be saved. One of Hart’s main objections to the idea of hell comes from his rejection of the free will defence of sin and evil. That defence says that we choose freely to sin and therefore ought to be punished for it. We are guilty.
Not so, says Hart, for such a view of freedom is illusory. In reality, all of our choices are compelled by either circumstances or genetics. (He makes this clear by essentially excusing Hitler his crimes on pp.38-39.) Without these hindrances we would always and inevitably choose the good. Ultimately we would choose God. So we can’t be held responsible for not choosing him in this life because we aren’t responsible for doing so. Our natures were compelled in that direction. We are really rational and would choose rationality but for that which hinders us.
Therefore there cannot be a hell (or presumably any kind of divine punishment) because we are not responsible for anything we do in this life. Hart says that this implies universalism but does it? Is God obligated to save everyone and give them eternal bliss if they are not responsible for their actions? Maybe this is where his cumulative case comes in.
But that nobody is responsible for anything they do in this life since all are victims or circumstance or genetics is clear. It is a strangely similar system, though inverted, to deterministic Calvinism which says that God ordained all good and evil for his greater glory. At least though there is some coherence (however perverse) in the Calvinistic theory. In Hart’s system, it is not clear how such a state of affairs as a creation fallen due to sin is logically possible.
And that is another point. Hart’s The Doors of the Sea appears to me to say that it was an act of rational freedom on the part of Adam that brought about the fall. He says there, “Only a rational creature can say ‘No’ to the Good knowing it is the Good.” And that seems like a coherent reading of the Christian tradition. However, on Hart’s view in That All shall be Saved, Adam’s sin appears inextricable. After all Adam was not hindered by his genetics (being unfallen) nor was he hindered by his environment (being in paradise). Why then did he sin? It must have been, to use Hart’s words, due to “an intentional perversity” which must be possible because Adam was free to reject or obey God’s commandments and respond to his love.
Admittedly, Hart may have changed his view since The Doors of the Sea but how does he account for Adam now? It seems that he must take the view that Adam and the fall are purely mythical and that the mythical implications, in some way, support his view in That All shall be Saved. But how is this possible?
Apart from anything else, it leaves the theodicy he presents in The Doors of the Sea in tatters and presents no coherent alternative. He speaks now of “a metaphysical fragility inherent in the distance between infinite and finite.” So creation, by virtue of its own identity, must admit sin and evil because of its ontological distance from God. But is this an acceptable - or Christian - theodicy?
To summarise: Hart’s view implies no real moral responsibility for human beings, no hell (and possibly salvation for all), no free will defence for Adam or anyone else, no real Adam or the fall, and a rejection of the theodicy presented in The Doors of the Sea - to be replaced with the much more obscure claim that creation is inherently ontologically or metaphysically fragile because it is not God.
My view is that the argument presented in The Doors of the Sea is much more coherent. It implies that human beings are truly free to choose good or evil - God or something else - and that we really are responsible for these choices. This is not some modern and innovative view of the human will as purely spontaneous. It is the clear implication of the Christian meta-narrative.
Tell me what you think.
Clearly free choice is absolutely essential in the plan the Almighty has for this world. We are made in his image: we are shown that Christ has free will to choose evil in the temptations. Satan certainly believes in His free will. The unfathomable and glorious humility of Christ rests partly on the fact that He allows us to reject the offer of salvation.
Which is not to say that choices to sin are not complex and influenced by upbringing, illness, biology and other factors. Hence we must leave judgement of others to God: we do not have the knowledge to make it. My son asked as a child whether we will have free choice in heaven - I had never thought of that, but yes, God is not a dictator.
The Catholic catechism on Universalism is roughly that we may hope for it but not preach it, which seems sensible. But that is surely hope of a full victory for Christ at some future point after this world is ended. Anne Bronte was famously a universalist, and I think Emily too, I think it is a major theme of Wuthering Heights.
A complete account of the problem or evil needs to account for the fallen angels, unless it dismisses the angelic realm as something imaginary. Surely their choices were not determined by genetics or environment. As for Adam and Eve, in the Orthodox account they are regarded as immature human beings who were deceived by the guile of the serpent. Their inherent desire for the good, for theosis, was presented as something apparently achievable without God. The incarnation, death and Resurrection of Christ opens the doors of Paradise that were closed by their disobedience. But no one is compelled to enter.