The Problem of Hell: A Thomistic Critique of David Bentley Hart’s NeceSsitarian Universalism

David Bentley Hart has recently argued that universal salvation is a metaphysically necessary outcome of God’s act creating rational beings. A crucial premise Hart’s argument compatibilist view free will, according to which God can determine human choices without taking away their freedom. This constitutes common ground between and the tradition classical Thomism, emphasizes non-competitive relation freedom causality. Unfortunately, Thomistic compatibilism undermines so-called Free Will Defense, often considered be only viable way responding contemporary criticism doctrine hell. Can existence hell reconciled with goodness given conception freedom? question interest not followers Aquinas but anyone who rejects ‘zero-sum competition’ grace, also believes divine revelation confirms possibility perdition. The present article proposes an alternative Defense—called Autonomy Defense—which aims block arguments for necessity salvation.