Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 178:710 (Apr 2021)
Article: Periodical Reviews
Author: John A. Adair

BSac 178:710 (April-June 2021) p. 233

Periodical Reviews

By The Faculty And Staff Of Dallas Theological Seminary

John A. Adair

Editor

“Shall All Be Saved? David Bentley Hart’s Vision of Universal Reconciliation—An Extended Review.” Benjamin B. DeVan, Christian Scholars Review 50.1 (2020): 85–95. “That All Shall Be Saved—A Response to Benjamin B. DeVan.” David Bentley Hart, Christian Scholars Review 50.1 (2020): 97–100.

Benjamin DeVan begins his review of David Bentley Hart’s That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation with a brief summary of the book’s contents, as Hart marshals biblical, theological, philosophical, and historical evidence in favor of the notion of universal reconciliation. DeVan spends the bulk of his review, however, on seven concessions and seven criticisms of Hart’s work.

Before moving to his lengthier seven criticisms, DeVan makes seven concessions to Hart’s universalism. Among these, two are particularly important in this conversation. First, DeVan distinguishes between soteriological pluralism and universal reconciliation (90). While the latter sees the emptying of hell, it does so (at least in Hart’s vision) as a result of the sacrificial and mediatorial work of Christ. Hart is no pluralist, and universal reconciliation does not demand pluralism. Second, DeVan argues that universalism is one way to offer a coherent treatment of biblical revelation (91). In other words, affirming universal reconciliation is not necessarily a rejection of biblical authority. One might ultimately reject Hart’s universalism, as DeVan does, without attacking Hart’s commitment to the authority of Scripture.

DeVan’s criticisms of Hart’s argument span a host of responses one might expect from a nonuniversalist. DeVan’s seven points largely argue for the logical coherence of eternal torment, dealing with issues surrounding the length of the penalty relative to the transgression itself, the continued rebellion of those in hell, and the possibility of heavenly happiness in light of hell’s existence.

Simply put, Hart does not, however, believe DeVan has interacted with his argument at its most foundational levels, but that he has in many cases dealt only with the surfaces of Hart’s fuller, more philosophically substantive arguments. Further, Hart believes DeVan has charged him with positions he was careful to avoid. Hart’s brief responses to DeVan’s criticisms reveal a more robustly philosophical approach than DeVan acknowledges, particularly in relation to Hart’s anthropology, which

BSac 178:710 (April-June 2021) p. 234

he characterizes with...