David Bentley Hart destroys fundamentalism

In his usually eloquent fashion, David Bentley Hart exposes the failure of fundamentalist views of Scripture.
David Bentley Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian, philosopher, and patristics scholar. Hart was educated at the University of Maryland, the University of Cambridge and the University of Virginia. He has taught at the University of Virginia, the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota), Duke Divinity School, and Loyola College in Maryland.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams described David Bentley Hart as "a theologian of exceptional quality, but also a brilliant stylist."
Reviews of Hart's "The Beauty of the Infinite":
"I can think of no more brilliant work by an American theologian in the past ten years." -- William C. Placher
"This magnificent and demanding volume should establish David Bentley Hart . . . as one of his generation's leading theologians." -- Geoffrey Wainwright

[@lbdeuce]

I love hearing this man talk. i think you should avoid language like destroys or OWNS. its does a disservice to this mans distinction.

[@leonardu6094]

He didn't even destroy anything. He's quite good at word salads I'll give him that, but his argument doesn't make sense at all. He says the idea that the bible holds any sort of uniformity is a myth. Well if he believes that then why is he christian and ostensibly following a book that lacks coherence.

[@lbdeuce]

​@@leonardu6094 youve missed my point totally.

[@leonardu6094]

​@@lbdeuce I wasn't directly responding to your comment. I was just stating i don't believe he did what the video title alleges.

[@evancrowley3404]

I agree. Hart would probably agree, too, given he constantly likes to reiterate the original title of "Atheist Delusions" is not his own but the publisher's, and that the subtitle of the book is his title. "Atheist Delusions" sounds like a cheap revolt at the New Atheist movement which reads like it came from a desperate evangelist. These provocative words are simply too tight to fit the deeper motives behind Hart's thinking.

[@johntobey1558]

@@leonardu6094 the word salad borders on incoherence.

[@sebastianmelmoth685]

Why can't this kind of mental robustness permeate ALL of Christianity? WHY!!!!!

[@chrisray9653]

The Christian God appears to be very absent.

[@sebastianmelmoth685]

@@chrisray9653 He does indeed

[@racheladkins6060]

Because of ignorance ,fear, teaching handed down from people being inseminated the doctrines of man about God.

[@franciscafazzo3460]

Mental robustness Who sounds like a debate high schooler

[@franciscafazzo3460]

Mental robustness Who sounds like a debate high schooler

[@shayneswenson]

I love your channel ObjectiveBob. Thank you for all the awesome DBH videos. I'm an Orthodox Christian convert, and his profoundly level headed approach to history, and Patristics made me wonder what he saw in Orthodoxy. Now I know. Christ is Risen!

[@Frankierios22]

So glad this wisdom and knowledge is still is here I’m trying to soak up all the knowledge I can from this channel. Thank you

[@ABCnDaddy]

thank you for sharing! the volume is a little low

[@LiturgicalChants]

Mr. David Hart is in my opinion one of the great theological theological minds of our times. He defies stereotypes and shatters prejudices and goes to the heart of the matter of what the teachings of the undivided orthodox catholic church were. He respects the latin, greek, syriac, alexandrian church fathers equally and upholds traditional teachings crucial to both roman catholic and eastern orthodox churches that are at times not understood by each other. Ad multos annos!

[@williamwilkes503]

Truly!

[@bjones5791]

The Catholic religion sucks.Just like ALL the works based religions.Read Galatians and learn,especially chapter 5.Very clear example of how much more amazing Paul’s writing is OVER anything this lame speaker has to say.The end.Game point.

[@MikeJunior94]

ObjectiveBob, do you have the full lecture, in its entirety or parts?

[@kennedyland1]

This guy is great. He personifies the meaning of the statement, "Why say something in 5 words when you can say the same thing in 50?"

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@RomTankin]

is there a web site that lists upcoming speaking dates for Hart? I've been wanting to see him for sometime.

[@hansnyman9546]

Very interesting. . . especially for someone raised to swim in the waters of Western evangelical tributaries.

[@2tehnik]

What talk is this from?

[@LorenMarvin]

The last line there is the most expressive truth of the situation.

[@johncrwarner]

I have to say that although fundamentalists claim to believe the literal word of God - I remember reading James Barr (Fundamentalism) who said they were not literalists but inerrantists in their approach to the Bible. I generally refer to them as "right-wing evangelical inerrantist christians" because it shows more of the taxonomy of their theology and shows more hints as to their biases and origins.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

John Warner And you sir are implying the genetic fallacy. Likely a result of some bitterness you retain towards us "fundies" because of the greater alignment we can sustain to scripture. Surrender to the word of truth.

[@mike-0451]

@@Jamie-Russell-CME no thanks 👍

[@MikeJunior94]

Ah yes, I seemed to have asked for your support to quickly, since I found it with a 5 minute search. Anyway, thanks for the rapid response!

[@bradleymarshall5489]

Interesting but one correction I think is worth pointing out is the myth of the Galileo controversy. The controversy didn't arise from having a literalist interpretation of the Bible, it arose because his calculations were wrong.

[@leeds48]

Anybody have the reference of the book he refers to at 7:35?

[@iijonzedii9510]

Sorry... a bit late but are you talking about "Life of Moses" by Gregory of Nyssa?

[@franciscafazzo3460]

I'd love to go through relations with you. And tell me what's not to be understood eccentrically by the history by the original audience. And how you you don't find the Grace to be coherent in that book or in the book of the Phoebe's. I'd like to debate you on that issue

[@ericday4505]

This is a very difficult question, and I see what Hart means here, but what are the parameters, or guidelines for allegory and symbolism, the tendency to play fast and lose with the texts is just to big a price for trying to embrace a deeper, or symbolic meaning, still a wooden literal reading too should not be the norm, what I think is there is too much of a sense of being modern and trying to rearrange the meanings of texts to meet the modern thinker and this leads to error, however this is a complex issue, all in all I tend to fall in the fundamentalist camp.

[@scottcarter1689]

Eric Day There is a fearful day coming for DBH. Prayerfully, he'll be granted repentance. But by the grace of God, we're all this lost.

[@scottcarter1689]

The next video is DBH... "atheist's best arguments"... Sadly, he IS the atheist best argument.

[@donatist59]

One of the reasons Hart abandoned Protestantism for Orthodoxy (just as I abandoned Mormonism for the Episcopal Church) is that "the Church" is one answer to your question. No Church can really be "built on the Bible" because the Bible only exists as an interpreted text, and each of us interprets it differently. (The fact there are some 40,000 separate "Bible believing churches" in the Protestant world confirms this fact.) Jesus established a Church and that Church has authority to interpret Scripture. Of course, that Church -- through human sinfulness -- has fallen into five pieces: the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Nestorians, and Monophysites. But having to choose between five options is much better than having to choose between 40,000.

[@bg4667]

Yes there are different theological ideas. For instance, there doesn't seem agreement in the OT on whether having a king is good or not, or whether the quid pro quo of Deuteronomy is really how things work. Comparing the theologies of Paul, Peter, and John for instance have disagreements on the nature of sin, redemption, etc., at least in their details and emphasis (keep in mind we are reading other people's mail). That's just a few examples.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

B G So what parts do you think are inspired?

[@brucefetter]

his point at 3:06 is a good one

[@jakemarks633]

If the bible is just a testament to revelation we might as well follow Schleiermacher.

[@hilairebelloc3368]

By no means. Hart is Orthodox and therefore accepts the authority of the Church in preaching the content of that revelation to which the Bible attests (and, I should note, which it contains): the Word of God in the Person of Jesus Christ.

[@user-cz8gi2om3n]

If there is no one correct interpretation of scripture, then how do we know the difference between a true reading and a false one? I'm not saying he's wrong, I just don't quite understand that part.

[@cinnamondan4984]

This and Sega Dreamcast are great

[@MrDoremouse]

At roughly 09:30-09:33 he says, '...the myth of the Bible's textual and theological uniformity..'' Can anyone reading this understand why some ppl might be baffled that God's revelation should not have a theological uniformity ? I'm not talking of an inerrant text, or even uniformity of practice, but different theologies in the Bible makes it sound odd. Am I quoting him without understanding his position ? I don't believe the Bible's without historical errors, but different theologies ?

[@randomperson2078]

Psalm 82 and the Book of Job have a different theology than, say, Hebrews. Is that so shocking?

[@mike-0451]

Compare the “God” of genesis to the God revealed by Christ, and you will find two different stories of being; one is true and beautiful, and the other is parasitic and toxic.

[@calebmundle5948]

@@mike-0451 marcion?? Is that you??? The God of Genesis and the God revealed in Christ are the same God.

[@mike-0451]

@@calebmundle5948 The God of Genesis floods the Earth. The God in Christ saves it. The God of Genesis must kill before he can create. The God in Christ needs nothing, and gives everything. Were it that the Jews had, really, the vision of God, they would not have expected the Messiah to arrive like a king; they would have already expected a slave; but the God is Genesis is a king, a prince, and moreover he is not the God who is good because he is good, but because he is powerful. The God in Christ is not merely powerful; he is not power, but love. He does not "get over" but he gets, and begets, and already has what he gets. The God of Genesis lies before the void, a sea of chaos and indeterminability, then acts upon it. The God in Christ is already light; the God of Christ is the light of the world, but he is the light, and the world; there is no darkness in God, nor shadow of turning. The God in Christ did not stand before a fecund field of chaos to create, but was already creation, already manifested, already the light in all places because the light is in his eyes. The light comes from his eyes, it does not come from outside him; wherever he looks there is light, because he is everywhere and nowhere; wherever he looks he sees himself; he does not see chaos, he does not conceive of sin. God does not know sin. God has been in every dark corner of the cosmos; there are stepping stones across the darkest rivers: these are his footsteps, for he has created as what he is, "I am who I am." What he is, is that he is. He says "I am," and he is love, and so everything was. You have seen the face of Jesus, you have seen God. God is not an idea, nor the man behind the face, the man behind the mask: God is the face. God is face. God is beauty, he is ornamentation, he is surface, he is creation. He is the bridal veil of Maya. He is the Atman that revels in himself. He is utter consciousness, but he is not asleep. He wakens into himself, even as he opens his eyes. God does not sleep, God is not apart from what he creates. God is always more, and is always this and that, but is never only "this", and is never only "that". "Nor will they say, 'see here!' or, 'see there!' For behold the kingdom of God is within you." God is difference, God is distance: the difference of red and blue, the distance between me and you. He is the bridge, which is also the distance, so he is the path. God is the light at the end of the tunnel, and he is also the tunnel. God is my love across the path, and he is also the path. God is beauty, but beauty is the path to beauty. God is not the destination, for the destination is the way. "I am the truth, the way, and the life." God is infinitely different than us, infinitely distant, and therefore he is always, always there. God is the path. God is the distance. God is the way to himself: God IS the way. As he walk toward him never to finally reach him, we are reaching him, tasting him; taste and see that the Lord is good! You will never see God's face a final time. You will never "see" him. You will always see him. There is nothing new under the sun; everywhere you look, you see him. You will not say, "I have seen something which is not God," then turn around and oppose the two together. God is, and is not. God is the "is" of both "it is" and "it is not". He is shadow and light, he is the contrast, he is the difference, he is the beauty, and he is also beautiful. He is the God of form. There is not form and then also concept. The form is the concept, the shape is the idea. There is not God, and then man. There is not the God who changes into man, becoming something other than himself. God is "I am becoming boundless bliss." God is "I am tasting in myself." God is humanity. God is already man, already with his son. God is "I am loving my son loving me." God is "I am becoming man becoming God becoming man becoming God becoming man becoming..." God is Epektasis. God stretches forever into his own superficial depth. His depth is infinite surface, and his surface is infinite depth. God is the abyss of light. God descended into man, and became himself; man ascended into God, and became himself. God ascended into man, and became himself; man descended into God, and found himself. He is the sky, and he is the water. He is up above and down below. Even as he falls away, he rises up. When you have seen the king, you have seen the face of God. When you have seen the slave, you have seen the face of God. When you have seen the face of God, you have seen the face of God. When you have seen God, you have seen a face. When you have seen a face, you have seen God. God is not without his eyes; the light is in his eyes. God is not apart from creation, he is not apart from his humanity. When we walk, we walk the path of God. God walks on water because he has already seen his reflection within it; God walks on water because he can never drown in himself, but drink and drink and drink, and never be quenched, and never be dry. Don't you see? Do you see what is man? We are not apart from God, but we are so far away from that we could never be alone; we are partaking in God, as God partakes in himself. This is timeless reprise of the dancer and the dance. God needs nothing; he already has what he wants, even as he wants. He is love. He is desire that is not different nor never apart from compassion. His compassion is his desire. He desire is his compassion. His mercy is justice, his justice is mercy. For our sins against God, Christ has sentenced man to mercy for the duration of forever in the palace of resplendence. God has said, "For your sins against me, I consign you to heaven." He has said, "You have fallen to the darkest abyss where no light can reach: I will get there early to meet you." As you look upon the face of God, you have seen him and only him. You have not seen a mask; there is no God except the God revealed in Christ. God is not a ghost with a human body. God is a man who has suffered. God suffered, but he did not die. The powers of this world dealt their blow, and broke their sword. As you have looked into his eyes, you have not seen the eyes of an impostor, nor the recrudescent demiurge, but you have seen him and nothing except him. You have not seen the "lesser form." You have seen him as he is, the God who is form. "I am who I am." "I am what I am." God is who he is, and he is the figure of Christ, who gives and gives and gives, even as he is given.

[@MrDoremouse]

Galatians always appears like Paul is dissing James; and Paul's Christology looks different to the author of John's Gospel cuz in 1 Cor. 15:28 it seems to say the ascended Christ will be ''subjected'' to G-d, ''that God may be all in all'' !!! I ditched fundamentalism years ago and now I dunno what ''inspiration'' is supposed to mean ? I know fundies will gloss over these probs, but REALLY that seems like ''spin''.

[@dioscoros]

Davidius Doremouseius You make a great point, this is why all sects that adhere to sola scriptura are fundamentally (see what I did there?) disordered towards the truth. The many reasons of that could be discussed but the point is that Christ founded the Catholic Church (we see this through history), and no institution except one that has been formed from God himself can be expected to accurately portray His truth, or word.

[@daithiocinnsealach3173]

@@dioscoros Claiming an absolute epistemological authority is not the same as proving one. The RCC model is riddled with problems that Protestantism, for all of its own unsolvable problems, rightly pointed out. I left the whole thing behind because of this. There is no Church on Earth today that has shown me it is the orthodox and orthoprax descendent of the Apostolic Church.

[@waylonwraith5266]

From The Branch Davidians of Waco by Kenneth G. C. Newport: “According to Koresh the Wgure on the white horse in Revelation 19.11 is a Wgure of the end time (himself) who is to come to destroy the wicked. But that Wgure is similar to the Wgure on the white horse who rides out at the opening of the Wrst seal (Rev. 6.2), so in Koresh’s reasoning these two riders are the same. The Wgure in Revelation 6.2 holds a bow. Now if he has a bow, reasons Koresh, he must have some arrows; there is a Wgure (a king) shooting arrows in Psalm 45.5; therefore, so argues Koresh, the rider in Psalm 45 is the same as the one in Revelation 6 who is the same as the one in Revelation 19. However, reading on in Psalm 45 we hear that this king is to have children who are to be princes in the earth (Psalm 45.16). From this Koresh concludes that he, the rider on the horse in Reve- lation 19.11, is to have children who will be princes in the new kingdom. // Such reasoning leaves the majority of people either amused or confused, but for Branch Davidians it all made good sense. In such communities the Bible is not seen as sixty-six separate books written in their own contexts and reXecting the concerns of the times in which they were individually written. It is seen as a uniWed revelation of God’s past, present, and future dealings with humankind. Koresh’s great appeal was his ability to construct these complex exegetical webs linking Bible passages together” (214-15).

[@timothyberry9310]

By the way the title is very misleading. David does not destroy fundamentalism. He nor the one posting this bit does not understand the word "fundamental" nor do they fully understand the issue. The issue is regarding whether we accept the modernist view of God and the Sacred Scriptures or do we accept the traditional teachings of the Orthodox or Catholic view of God and the Sacred Scriptures.

[@MikeJunior94]

Fundamentalism is very much so a modern thing though...

[@timothyberry9310]

BecomingMike Fundamentalism is a term that is dependent upon the "what" one is being fundamental with. The very thing the term is applied to will determine whether or not it is good, bad, or modern. Again I defer going back to what the word "fundamental" means.

[@GorillaGrodd420]

I always thought it meant just the very basics. What is the basic believes one needs to be saved. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.

[@timothyberry9310]

David Misner Everything that is "dogmatic" or necessary for belief in order to be considered a "Christian" was laid out in the Creed's of the Church, namely the Nicene Creed. This was formalized and reinforced in several councils. So if anyone purports a belief that is contrary to that Creed they are purporting something that is not consistant with the Christian faith.

[@GorillaGrodd420]

I will look into the Nicene Creed.

[@Ewilds]

Of course trying to rely on the Bible has its own problems, namely, there isn't a single Bible. Different Christian traditions use different Bibles. The Bible of the Orthodox Church is different from the Bible of the Lutherans. Traditional Christianity understands that Christianity isn't a "religion of the book," but a religion inspired the Word i.e. Logos.

[@donatist59]

Exactly. "The Word of God" is not the Bible. "The Word of God" is Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity.

[@leonardu6094]

He's quite good at word salads I'll give him that, but his argument doesn't make sense at all. He says the idea that the bible holds any sort of uniformity is a myth. Well if he believes that then why is he christian and ostensibly following a book that lacks coherence.

[@leatui7]

@@leonardu6094 there is a term in psychiatry, "Psychotic defenses," referring to the way that people with certain kind of neurological deficits or personality disorders maintain irrational delusional beliefs.

[@hilairebelloc3368]

@@leonardu6094 Because the coherence is Scripture can only be seen through the lens of faith. The Bible can only be read as the Word of God (as opposed to a mere collection of human texts) when it is read in the faith of the Church; as Augustine put it, "I would not believe in the Gospel except for the teaching of the Catholic Church" (I quote from memory, but that's the gist).

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

Is it just me who has a sinking suspicion that these theologians read into the father's precisely what can be plucked out and quoted in isolation in order to fit with their interpretation. Not seeing the greater context which likely destroys their misuse of what is being said? The emphasis of the father's is to give more than a literal meaning(as we mean it today). But not inspite of the deeper meanings. But along with them. Emphasizing the grandeur of that which proclaims the authorship of the whole mass, namely God Himself, but by which it was also accomplished in time, in individually authored books, penned by men. Whom were successful only by the foreknowledge and predestination of God Who carried them along by His very Spirit.

[@DebugOctopus]

shit title good video

[@polymath7]

As for Hart's prose, it takes considerably less than a while, at least in my case, to find it tiresome, and if it isn't the quintessence of stilted affectation, it's quite beyond my literary skill to deliberately craft a genuine example. Do note, in his speech, the dry, laconic tone, the very obviously rehearsed phlegmatic disdain, as though he is too world-weary to make any lucid argument for the benefit of those too obtuse to infer on their own the inchoate insights he keeps to himself.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

polymath7 YOWZA!

[@peggyharris3815]

So...you don't like him?

[@MagnificentFiend]

/r/iamverysmart

[@thomaswilliamruston]

And yet you copy him

[@QuadrivialArts]

Look at me I've read literature and I like Christopher Hitchens.

[@ChuckyChuckster]

Try reading his book "Atheist Delusion". U might have a better opinion of him.

[@MikeJunior94]

Oh please, Geisler thinks that the Bible is inerrant because the Bible is the word of God and God can't error. I mean, such an argument is worse than the fumbling we hear from Richard Dawkins and his flock. /watch?v=r2Ax5jI_q3M

[@justinwishart3327]

I'm not sure this guy has done much interaction with Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura at a scholarly level. He seems to be arguing against a caricature.

[@justinwishart3327]

@Ariiel11RP There are high-level scholars who are young earth creationists and anti-evolutionists.

[@mikebaker2436]

I'd like an example of an academic protestant who holds to fundamentalist teaching that does not fit his description.

[@nikolasmakarios8639]

@@justinwishart3327 any examples? Seems kind of silly.

[@edwardking1312]

Unless one comes to Jesus like a child they will not experience the King. One’s intellect can hinder one from experiencing the Presence of the Lord.wasn’t it the scholars who crucified Jesus.

[@groovyman67]

He may be eloquent, but for the common man not engaging. if he preaches, hope it is nothing like this. very high brow. Brings to mind 'Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.' Bible not infallible is inherently an attack on the gospel of Christ.

[@Studentofgosset]

This guy can surely read what is written in front of him quite well...

[@daithiocinnsealach3173]

I'm sure what he's saying is very interesting, learned and erudite, but he is hard to listen to. There is a way to teach complex, difficult to understand subjects in an interesting way. This is the first lecture of DBH I have listened to and it has not whetted my appetite for ant more. I was impressed with his interview on Closer to Truth and wanted more, but this monotone verbosity will send me to sleep if I'm not careful.

[@donatist59]

By all means read his book "Atheist Delusions". If you can get past the needlessly provocative title, it is an absolutely brilliant look at just how revolutionary Christianity is over and above the pagan world of antiquity -- and the modern implications of that fact.

[@gre8]

I'm a DBH fan but I take your point that his spoken lectures can be a bit hard to follow. His writing tends to be much clearer to follow, tho and I feel like his lectures work better as written text too.

[@LionHeart12357]

A sure sign prophecy is true and the church has apostatized... aka leaving the faith in droves, not enduring sound doctrine... 1 Peter 1: 16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[@Hainan48]

There's a problem with Dr. Hart's presentation. Fundamentalists often rely on 19th century independent church theologians dictating their creative method of reading the Bible. Now Dr. Hart asks us to rely on Eastern Orthodox theologians of the 3rd, 4th and 5th century AD for methods of interpretation. The former are far too mechanical and NOT LITERAL (They can't tell a poem from narrative.). The latter are far too Neoplatonic, sharply dividing the world into spiritual and physical realms. New Testament authors saw the Gospel in history as an unveiling of some of the mysteries of Jewish history and prophecy. Why not rely on the Bible to speak for itself. Look to the men and women of character who have demonstrated the fruit of the Spirit in their lives and remind us of Christ. In addition we theologians must immerse themselves into the culture and norms of the Biblical era before we affirm our own norms and misbehavior. "The Spirit" or "the Holy Spirit." Listening to Hart, I feel like he's trying too hard to glue together modern philosophy and late patristic exegesis together. Fundamentalist can be faulted for understanding the Bible in the themes, definitions and issues of the modern era. But it is the same flaw in Eastern Orthodoxy and modern philosophical theology. Bishop Spong speaks of 'channeling' and Hart speaks of 'being.' But would Luke, Peter, Paul or Hosea have any idea what they are talking about? Granted, Hart is right to consider the issue of the 'heart' (consciousness) in theology but let's not forget the spleen ('gut feelings') that something is off base.

[@Breckmin]

Dana Roberts perhaps it's a more simplistic progression over the last 500 years or so since Martin Luther generalized that Scripture never errs. We see the evolution of verbal inspiration as a unifying theology which promoted order in evangelical conservationism. The critical thinkers who are dropping from biblical inerrancy since the emergence of information available on the web often go too far and completely lose their faith temporarily (or long term) so evangelical conservatives have had to pay this price for over simplistic inerrancy. Ultimately the Holy Spirit convicts the believer that the gist of meaning from scripture is indeed true... how this is interpreted in a hyper technical sense is often the problem.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

It's easy to discourage the Protestant method of interpretation when you see the endeavor of reconciling the whole of God's word as truth as impossible. But by what standard should one look when desiring a connection to the God who has proclaimed Himself to us through that word? "Have you not read? It is written. Thy word is truth." I will take the plain reading to mean what it says to the majority of the minds God was pefectly aware of when He sought to speak to them, " ....from ancient times of things which had not yet taken place." And more, etc

[@dioscoros]

Breckmin There seems to be a problem with this comment thread in that people are taking for granted that Martin Luther has some legitimacy in the history of what we might call "sensible interpretation". The problem is that Martin Luther's MAIN interpretation was a certain understanding of faith alone that is clearly contrary to James 2, Romans 2, although you would find other contradictions throughout the NT of Martin Luther's faulty interpretation. (see Romans 2:6-8 and James 2:14-24 for specific citations, although it's useful to read it in context as well). Martin Luther had an obvious mental disorder when you look at how he behaved (I'm talking in the sense of an unusual fear of still being guilty for confessed sins, not his attention to fecal matter, that's a different type of mental disorder that he had), so it's obvious to see why he focused so much on this wishful thinking. This is because it put man at the center of his own life, just believe and sin all you want, God isn't particularly happy that you're sinning, but he'll just usher you into heaven either way. He based this on Romans 3:28, which in context (especially verse 29) shows that this "works of the law" is talking about the Mosaic law (note "circumcision" being used so frequently). This is because St. Paul was rebuking the earliest heresy of the Catholic Church - Judaizing. So obviously, if Christ fulfilled the Old Law, and the Old Law pointed to Christ, then to practice it would be a denial OF Christ having already came (as expressed in the Council of Florence). At the end of the day, we must look at the historical truth of Christianity (although the Eastern Orthodox are very close to Christianity), we will see that the false Protestant mindset is totally unscriptural. The Bible becomes: Whenever it says "faith", it means "faith alone". Whenever it says "works of the law/works", it means "all actions that are intrinsically good". Whenever it says [to do] "good works" or [avoid] "sin" because "those will not inherit the kingdom of God", it means "this is how we judge fellow believers on whether or not they're true believers". Satan is at the center of it, doesn't matter if it's Arianism, Monophosytism, Protestantism (whichever of the literally uncountable versions you follow), Islam or Hinduism. Protestantism quickly led to protestant sects that are in fact non-Christian (such as the JW's, Mormons and Calvinists). The reason why these sects are not Christian is because they get the nature of God completely wrong. JW's and Mormons deny the Trinity, and Calvinists believe that God hates people from all eternity, and thus sends them to hell. In fact, the god of the Calvinists (besides Church looting and man-centeredness), is Satan himself, because the god they believe in is a god that mimics God, yet hates people from all eternity, and wishes their damnation.

[@justinwishart3327]

As a Protestant who holds to Sola Scriptura, I can recognize a poem. lol

[@worldnotworld]

I want to _tell_ all this to my fellow American skeptics, but it seems just one level too sophisticated; Hart presumes you know quite a bit more than my skeptical friends know. But I was in their boat once too, so I'm going to do it anyway.

[@Actuary1776]

I’m really struggling to watch Hart. I feel he has some unique views I would like to understand, but for the life of me can’t stomach the pompousness and word salads guys like him and NT Wright often engage in. You can say what you want to say in about 66% less words. Spit it the fuc@ out.

[@cleverestx]

Not trying to offend here, but I disagree for the most part and would suggest that you maybe utilize a dictionary? This is a personal opportunity for you to increase your own vocabulary. While It's possible to distill things down somewhat, that is only the case to some degree. Some concepts and ideas are more powerfully and sharply expressed by more accurate words, and some of these words are BIGGER words not often found in common vernacular. I wouldn't want Mr. Hart to dumb things down and lose the power of his articulation. That's just me maybe, but also everyone else who isn't bothered by a very intelligent person speaking his native way.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Pompous doesn't mean wrong. Hart's arguments are usually very formidable. He knows what he's talking about. I wish WLC would sit down and learn from Hart...

[@mikebaker2436]

This is pretty standard academic language... especially for the disciplines that Hart is schooled in.

[@donatist59]

Just sit back and enjoy how a master uses the English language.

[@paulearle5361]

@@cleverestx Well said! When I first began to read and listen to more advanced theology I never had a sense of indignation about more complex forms of delivery EVEN WHEN I struggled and felt “out of my depth”. The careful listener will hear in the midst of these and other lectures the sound of worship. Speaking as a professional violinist I have never, after having played a Mahler symphony thought to myself, “well that could have been expressed in far less time and with much fewer notes.” Or when looking at the painting of a great master never tempted to impatience with the complexity nor lament that it could have been achieved with a much simpler pallet of colours. Great theology as with great music and great visual art are consummate acts of wonder and worship. To quote the late T.F. Torrence, “we must think (speak, write) of God in ways that are worthy of God”

[@raymondmorehouse]

Clickbait aside... I can't help but notice that Hart either doesn't understand the "fundamentalists" he describes or is deliberately overstating the situation.

[@ObjectiveBob]

Lol

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

This is utter nonsense.Hart frequently attempts to wiggle out of the reality of the Bible by appealing to "allegory." The problem is that the same St. Augustine who recognized the ark as an allegory of the Church also tried to show how all the world's animals could fit into that Ark. He should know better.

[@ObjectiveBob]

I wouldn't dismiss Hart's knowledge of patristics so easily, since he is a patristics scholar and that's one of his areas of specialization. More to the point, though, regarding your claim about Augustine, it shouldn't surprise us that Augustine took it for granted that the Genesis account was basically historical. Why shouldn't he have? He didn't have the discoveries (nor the categories) of modern science to believe otherwise. The point is that if Augustine were alive today, interpreting Scripture in light of modern science, he would be perfectly unperturbed.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Hart's knowledge of the patristics is rather weak, to be honest. He plainly hasn't read the most recent scholarship on Maximus, makes absurd claims about Palamas, and rejects the Fifth Council. He obviously knows much more about it than the average Joe, but he should be seen for what he is: a very entertaining popular writer. I wish his conversations with Perry Robinson were still online, because they were quite damning. Apart from ad hominems, I strongly disagree with your comment about St. Augustine. There is a difference between an incidental matter which doesn't structure Christian theology and a matter which throws a wrench into the heart and soul of Christian theology. I'm not the only one to identify common descent as a wrench- just read Jamie Smith's article on Adam and evolution. He's a theistic evolutionist and acknowledges that evolution is fundamentally different from geocentrism in the way it challenges the heart of the Christian mystery. Man is microcosm and mediator. As man goes, so goes the cosmos. Adam was created in a natural body which was not yet deified, but not yet corrupt- so also the creation was not yet deified and not yet corrupt. This rules out any sort of corruption chronologically prior to the Fall. After the Fall, the creation became corrupt, and in the eschaton, the creation will be incorrupt and deified. The Adam-Last Adam dichotomy is at the heart and soul of Orthodoxy. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend as if this is an easy issue. As for the science, my view is that if someone wants to talk about this issue, they need to have studied the science, and I have. While I'm by no means an expert, I know what evolution is, I know the evidence for it, and I know there are loads of unsolved problems from a YEC view. I won't go into all of this here because I've already written on it: kabane52.tumblr.com/post/109403258965/on-young-age-creationism And on Genesis 1-11: kabane52.tumblr.com/post/116563365320/why-genesis-1-11-matters (Sorry, coffee works!) in XC

[@ObjectiveBob]

+KabaneTheChristian When you say common descent throws a wrench into the heart and soul of Christian theology, whose "Christian theology" are you referring to? And what constitutes a "heart and soul"? There are, after all, different theologies, even within the same church tradition (be it Orthodox, Catholic, or any variety of Protestant). And most theologians would probably say that their theology is "Christian"; who are we to believe? The notion that a single theologian has arrived at a conclusive theological "system", whose interpretation of Scripture and tradition is so final that it constitutes a theological "heart and soul" (as you've called it), seems to me both intellectually nave and pompous; it is the root of all fundamentalisms (and, my God, what a stream of Orthodox fundamentalism we have seen in recent years). To your point about man as microcosm, though: I see no reason to suppose that Paul's Adam-Christ typology is anything but theological. Nor, therefore, do I see any reason to suppose that Adam is the progenitor of the human species, rather than a mythological representation of all mankind. And to your point about the chronology of the fall: again, you have given me no reason to interpret the Eden narrative as a historical event. I fail to see why we may not interpret it as a symbol of the fallen state of creation.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

1. Orthodoxy, which is what Hart identifies as. 2. When you say that Paul's Adam-Christ typology is just "theological", I find that bizarre. Of course it's theological. The Trinity is theological. The resurrection is theological. All of these things are theological. You seem to be using "theological" to refer to "unreal" which has pretty dramatic implications if it is applied consistently. As Paul would say- "do we then overthrow history by this theology? By no means! Instead, we establish the history." Paul's point in Romans 5 depends upon there being an actual Adam from whom we are descended. Our consubstantiality with the Adam who fell is fixed because of the double homoousion of the Last Adam. 3. The same with "symbolism." Symbolism is all over the Scripture. There are symbolic descriptions across the resurrection accounts. Just two examples. One, you can compare the sequence of events describing what happens to the garments of Christ to Zechariah 3 and find that Jesus is being painted as the High Priest who accomplishes the final Day of Atonement. This isn't mean to overthrow history, because what it shows is that Jesus is REALLY the High Priest who accomplishes the true Day of Atonement. The symbolism establishes the reality. Second example. The Gospel of John is structured according to a tour of the Tabernacle. Jesus ascends up the Tabernacle, and each piece of furniture is symbolically addressed in order. The climax of this sequence is the Empty Tomb with the Two Angels overlooking the Tombstone. The point, of course, is that the Tomb is the New Holy of Holies, and the Tombstone is the throne of Yahweh. Jesus is BOTH Yahweh AND the High Priest. Does this mean that the words of the Lord in John's Gospel never happened? That there weren't angels in Christ's Tomb? Of course not. As with before, symbolism fills history with its theological significance. We live in a theo-centric universe. We should expect history to be thick with theology. 4. Symbols are expressions of reality. If Adam and Eden are not history, then creation isn't fallen. After all, what is it fallen from? According to you, if I understand you correctly, there was in fact no period of time where the creation was natural but not yet corrupt. So suffering and death are not fallen, but normal. If there was no Fall, then what the Fathers call concupiscence (a defect of the will healed by Christ) is in fact simply a result of the evolutionary process, part of what makes us human. This raises grave questions about the contingency of sin and the goodness of God. 5. The reason I say the Adam-Christ dichotomy is the heart and soul of (Orthodox) Christian theology is because of several things. First, anyone who spends a significant amount of time in the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church knows that "Adam did this- but Christ did this" comes up at nearly every Service, major and minor. Second, the Fathers structured their theology according to this principle. Look at St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" or St. Irenaeus' commentary on why the Word assumed flesh. It's everywhere. Third, the theology of the Councils is largely built on this. This is especially the case wiht the Sixth Council. Adam introduced a defect of the will into humanity which is undone by the submission of Christ. According to St. Maximus, Adam possessed a gnomic will, but no concupiscence. Christ possessed no gnomic will, and healed our concupiscence. Our wills become fixed in the eschaton. This is the distinction I mentioned above among natural, fallen, and deified. Finally, as for the "fundamentalist" charge. By this point I'm simply unscarred by such charges. My concern isn't whether I'm being a "fundamentalist" but whether I'm well-read on the subjects I'm spouting on or whether I'm talking out of my rear end. I have little patience with young-earthers who plainly haven't done their homework and just lob anathemas, and I have equally little patience with those TEs who simply insist that there ain't no problem. I profess what I believe to be accurate. I also think Catholics are imperfectly members of the Church. I don't think we should be rebaptizing baptized Christians. I'm only a stereotypical fundamentalist insofar as I think such fundamentalists happen to be accurate on one or two points. I'm not sure if I mentioned this above, but I actually came into Orthodoxy as a theistic evolutionist and defended it for quite some time. It was a very gradual process of change, and was the result of a lot of converging factors, some of which I discuss in my blog posts linked above. Sorry for the length! Peace in XC.

[@ObjectiveBob]

+KabaneTheChristian I'm not sure what made you think that I was making the rather crude equation between "theological" and "unreal." And regarding the definition of "symbolic" and its relationship to history I have no quarrel with you (as long as we remember that symbols are symbols). My point was simply that a historical event (like the resurrection) can be theological, just as a myth--such as the Eden narrative--can also be theological. The Eden narrative is not historical, though it is both symbolic and theological. On the question of the fall, I'm very much with Hart when he says that "The fall of rational creation and the subjugation of the cosmos to death is something that appears to us nowhere within the unbroken time of nature or history; we cannot search it out within the closed continuum of the wounded world; it belongs to another frame of time, another kind of time, one more real than the time of death." Paul Griffiths expands on this point brilliantly: "The angelic fall creates the context and the frame for everything that is to follow...the created order is damaged, fallen, devastated, as soon as it is brought into being. All those creatures brought into being after the angels--and that's all of them--come then into an already damaged, partly devastated world." I believe that this is the natural outworking of a certain angelology whose logic I find particularly convincing (and quite in line with the New Testament). Obviously, then, this doesn't mean that suffering and death are normal (or "unfallen") features of our world. They are thoroughly abnormal--ontological defects--which are contrary to the good, but which will ultimately be defeated by God. I take this to be the message of the Gospel. Although Paul believed in a historical Adam (again, like Augustine, there's no reason he shouldn't), I don't see anything in the eschatological conclusions of Romans 5 that requires us to believe in a historical Adam. I don't thereby disparage that Adam-Christ typology that plays such a big role in Orthodox liturgy and patristic theology and the sixth council. My position remains the same: Adam is a mythological representation of all mankind, and I don't see how that view requires me to eschew the eschatological promise of the Gospel.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

No, ow! (Now) I may know why this man Is referred by his first, last, AND middle names. Because all good serial killers are. You may interpret that with what ever spirit happens to be blowing your skirt up at this particular vacuous moment.

[@HoytRoberson]

This, I think it's a poor example of Hart. He gives here an impression of tilting at windmills in his over generalization of fundamentalism. He is actually arguing that a "looser" trading of Scripture that allows for allegory and situational applicability of the truths of the revelation that have been revealed is preferable, and in fact more appropriate than a literalist trading of the final canon. He is correct that the history of the church includes various ways of reading Scripture and anyone who has read the Fathers and other ancient writings cannot miss the truth of this. It may come as a bit of a surprise to some that Israel did not use her prophetic and psalmic writings in the same way Moderns do. Because this is true, Hart posits a sort of situational exegesis in which the text doesn't have an exact, literal, for all time meaning, nor is the defined, closed canon everything to be said on the topic of the revelation. This is his primary argument which he obfuscates by inserting "fundamentalism" into his discourse. This line of thinking, extending to his reference to The Life of Moses, arises naturally from his Orthodox learning. Orthodoxy continues to be considerably less "Western" in its approach to the apprehension of Scripture and the revelation through Jesus. Even so, his assertion that the text does not say what we want it to say in the way we want it to say it, entirely depends on what it is we want it to say. It is apparently clear enough for Hart to pontificate about it, granted that he uses Patristics to provide nuance and explication. The question for Hart then is, what is that revelation that isn't clear? His reliance on ancient writers is problematic given that they do use allegory and Pre-Modern methods of reflection, seemingly opening our grasp of the revelation to whatever we might fancy it to be. There are a few Full Preterists for example, who have no problem seeing much of Jewish Scripture as related only to Israel, Genesis being a highly allegorized myth of Israel's forming rather than the world. They then go on to argue that Gentiles are not non - Jews, but the Jews of the diaspora resulting in the conclusion that even the Christ event is limited for ever to Israel; that there never has been our was ever intended a Christian Gentile church.

[@timothyberry9310]

David Bentley Hart is purposing a modernistic way of reading the Biblical text. This hermeneutic is not consistent with the doctrines of the Orthodox or the Catholic Church. Unfortunantly, most seminary and university professors who profess any kind of Christian faith have embraced it.

[@grunt12394]

You're absolutely right. The Catholic Church is perhaps more literal than the Protestant Churches when reading the bible. This video is so much nonsense we don't need to apologize for up holding biblical truth against Galileo.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Hart is a modernist (when it comes to Scripture) because he plays allegory and symbolism against the historical sense of a text. For traditional Christians, the two senses not only stand together, but necessitate each other- the allegorical sense of Scripture unveils the meaning of the history described in Scripture, because the same God who inspired Scripture has overseen history. We know Hart is inconsistent on this point because he only ever talks about allegory in the Old Testament so as to justify his disbelief in its historicity. But the Fathers found plenty of allegorical meaning in the Gospels, and Hart doesn't want to undermine their historicity. The attempt to argue that historical readings of Scripture are actually a product of modernism sounds very attractive. But it simply does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

[@99sleonard]

This guy wouldn't last 3 minutes with the likes of Norman Geisler or D.A. Carson.

[@pedrotherabbit2222]

Scott Leonard Not so sure about that, but the problem is, that D.A Carson wouldn't last 1 minute with a sophmore in evolutionary biology...if Carson would go down "that road"...with literalism.

[@Payne2view]

What a dull, dry and verbose way of saying he doesn't believe. At least Richard Dawkins is entertaining.

[@MikeJunior94]

What dull, dry and verbose way of saying you don't understand a thing David itterated.

[@Payne2view]

Sorry I just was not kept interested long enough to hear everything he said.

[@MikeJunior94]

Robert Payne Well, that was to be expected if you find Dawkins' childish, philosophically unsophisticated remarks "entertaining".

[@Payne2view]

I think my point was that whatever one's argument, even one nonsensical like we get from Dawkins, it needs to be able to catch the attention of the observer. This chap just didn't catch my attention. It seemed like a dull university lecture, that's all.

[@Payne2view]

yet (if I remember from April) he does strongly infer that 'fundamentalist' Christianity and its adherents are in error. The video title suggests that fundamentalist Christianity is something to be "destroyed". I am sure there are many clergy who don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus or his miracles or his expected physical return or that Jesus is the only means of salvation who would insist they were a Christian. I'd expect that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Catholics would tell you they are Christians without realising that they are not.

[@johns1590]

Sounds like gnosticism to me.

[@hilairebelloc3368]

If that's the case, then the whole tradition has been gnostic.

[@ronhenzel]

He flat-out does not know what he's talking about.

[@ChristopherDHeye]

Uh... Sure lol

[@hilairebelloc3368]

yeah no

[@polymath7]

"I'm and theist, and," And you're brazen liar. My suspicion is always immediately aroused by this preamble, so I briefly perused your page and found that you claim on another board "...there is only one judge of my soul, and that is Jesus Christ..." You are quite right to fear your rhetoric will be underwhelming without the enrichment of this cheap device; you are quite wrong to hope your rhetoric is any more persuasive for it.

[@Mrm1985100]

??