If All Will Be Saved, Why Does God Allow for Sin? - David Bentley Hart

[@jaslanr]

DBH is the only one bringing this level of wisdom to the table. If only Christians could listen to this without there broken filters

[@nikokapanen82]

I do not know about him much but what he tries to explain here, that evil is a result of free will is a miserable and failed excuse for simply saying "I do not know" He is not the only one though, lots of Christians are pushing this foolish free will excuse, what they never do though is explain how did free will make a portion of beings evil.

[@Jordan-hz1wr]

You’re right, you don’t know much about him. Because that isn’t at all what he says.

[@ExposeDarkness7]

The knowledge of Good and evil, placement in the Kingdom, equity, Justice, these are reasons why, and with glorifying God, and the power of Good over evil, which is who God is, He is Good, and He is Love.

[@GreatSalvation]

The knowledge of Good and evil, placement in the Kingdom, equity, Justice, these are reasons why.

[@kevinrice-eftpractitioner167]

The objection asks why God didn't create moral agents who weren't moral agents and why God wouldn't prefer beings who had no real, responsible participation in their own virtues to those who cultivated their own goodness and thus take some personal ownership of it and deserve some praise for it.

[@jaslanr]

Who then persuades someone to be good?

[@pabloh5884]

Well same could be said for every who is going “to be” saved anyway.. This isn’t a issue only “universalists” has to deal with but anyone who believes anyone will be saved at all I guess… And the same goes for the fall, why “allow” the “fall” at all..

[@JD-HatCreekCattleCo]

Exactly if you truly Love something you allow it to be free.

[@nickj5451]

Hmm, I'm a bit confused tho. Doesn't Hart say that rejecting God is not truly a free act, and that's why, ultimately, we can't persist forever in sin and separation from God in hell? I think this reasoning makes good sense, but, if that's the case and we are freer if we are unable to sin (as Jesus was unable to sin - which isn't truly an "inability" since sin itself is a privation), why would it be necessary that we're able to sin, that is, separate ourselves from God (even if only temporarily), lest, as he put it, God's creatures would be mere automata? I'm probably misunderstanding tho, so I'm wondering if anyone can clarify or perhaps point to where DBH or anyone addresses this.

[@nickj5451]

[Just some side questions that come to mind - tho I mainly am asking about the above comment, so feel free to ignore this: Wouldn't it rather be that our "ability" to sin comes from some limitation of our freedom and that the fulfillment of God's eternal design for creation in mankind does not come to fruition until after an elapse of time? But even then, why would this limitation mean that sin must be possible? A lack of freedom would not /necessarily/ mean a lack of /due/ freedom - that is, a lack of a due good, that is, evil or sin. Rocks, trees and animals lack all kinds of good, but not necessarily due goods, nor is sin a possibility for them. So then, limitations on our freedom would be necessary but not sufficient for sin. So as far as I can tell, neither our being free nor our freedom being limited seems enough to account for the necessity of the possibility of sin. Because as it looks right now, the reasoning which dismisses the clearly absurd problem of an eternal separation from God - our ultimate good and end - in turn leaves us with the problem of how there could even be such a thing a sin in the first place, how there could be, even for a moment in the unfolding of time, something contrary to God's eternal design of creation.]

[@dariofromthefuture3075]

@@nickj5451 The infinite contains all finite objects, potentials, species, and levels of wisdom. The only thing God can't do - is not be infinite. This is an ancient tenant in the Eastern religions. The fallenness of world, and man is what creates the rich variety of pleasures, pains, and experiences -- and there is feminine grace in the infinite creator being pushed and stretched by experiencing all of itself through the embodying and nurturing of Creation back into its Self. Just as we don't have children merely to continue the species, but rather to see life anew thru their eyes -- same goes for God and it's Creation. Bring a feminine sensibility to this question -- not a legalistic one-- and it makes perfect sense.

[@Aidan-ch2lb]

I am looking for an answer to the very same question!

[@mattr.1887]

Is it possible that we NEED sin? ie, Could we even grow and learn at all if we were unable to fail? I know how blasphemous that question sounds. But I ask it with all sincerity.

[@prestonhall4130]

And journey into the infinity of God! Wow.

[@adammcguk]

But aren't we going to end up as such "puppets" after the resurrection with an inability to sign?

[@dariofromthefuture3075]

Very little difference between universalist Christianity and Buddhism/The Yogic Schools/Vedante. And I find that quite cool :)

[@EnergeticProcession]

And yet in his book he advocates for theological determinism, so this appeal to "free" choice simply isn't open to him, and his position is inconsistent.

[@markslomp8607]

He doesn’t take libertarian free will. But that doesn’t mean he’s against a freedom of the will. I take what he’s saying he is there’s a sense of freedom in “starting from nothing and journeying into the infinite act of God”. I guess it’s kind of a soul building device being used here

[@EnergeticProcession]

@@markslomp8607 The problem is that determnism is incompatible with Orthodox accounts which are decidedly lbertarian. 2nd however he defines freedom, since God can determine that freedom whichever way he wishes, he still can't use freedom to explain whence evil.

[@hunivan7672]

Actually it is free, because you are only free when you are not obstructed by various factors.

[@DavidinMiami]

This is where the book of Job, rather than being a hindrance to faith, becomes a pathway to understanding it. Job's merits do not save him; the One who saves Job is responsible for not only lifting Job into lofty heights of awareness but also demonstrating to Job that the great Creator of all things is quite capable of being the Savior or transformer of all that he has made, including that which has been reduced to a lesser state through the fall, sin, rebellion, self-righteousness, etc. Salvation and acceptance intrinsically emanate from omniscience. The vastness of God makes room for limited, flawed, self-righteous man at his best and at his worst. Think of it this way: When that which is limited and flawed journeys into a limitless vastness, how can that which is limited and flawed not be transformed? If that limitless vastness were suddenly curtailed, the path toward transformation would be hindered. But as long as God remains limitless, all limited beings who wander into that vastness must inevitably be perfected by that vastness-even if it takes eons. After all, what are eons in the grand scheme of infinite love and goodness?

[@nickj5451]

Hm, seems I'm not the only one asking these/similar questions in the comments here! Seems obviously inconsistent with what I just heard him say in "That All Shall Be Saved" when talking about freedom. Hope he could clarify, because I am overall very much appreciating his thoughts!

[@2tehnik]

I have to say this kind of befuddles me. I mean, considering the end point where we would be hanging out in New Jerusalem, could we tell the difference between whether the world was made that way, with the appearance of a whole cosmic drama, or whether one had really happened? Even if one were to say that God wouldn't do the former due to not being a deceiver, it makes no difference with regards to our epistemic status and the insight it lends into the freedom of sinlessness being a "state function" (ie. doesn't depend on the course one take to get on it, but only on what someone is at some point in time). To put another way, for Hart's case to work, there needs to be some need, be it moral or metaphysical, for the existence of the continuum from fallenness to salvation, instead of just being "skipped" to the end. Hart doesn't object that the automatons are metaphysically impossible (though maybe the reasoning eludes me), and instead talks about it in terms of their creation being, at the very least, not anything good. Or at least not as good as the existence of saved humans. Why this is, I cannot really tell. And the real thing that confused me comes in this: I've heard of those kinds of responses before, and they always come in with a certain libertarianism/voluntarism attached; what's good is the libertarian will, and the "automatons" are bad because they don't have it. But Hart is very starkly opposed to such views on freedom. Indeed, in this very same interview he says that freedom consists in the ability to pursue our natural end, unconstrained by external factors. How would lacking the second potentiality for sin (which we imagine the automatons would have, the lack that is), get in the way of having the same kind of natural ends as us?

[@BrotherLaymanPaul]

Is this an excerpt from a longer video? If so, can a link be provided?

[@LoveUnrelenting]

It is a short piece that I ended up not using in a longer video about free will and providence: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pWSql3Z9i99qm5Y

[@ObsidianTeen]

Tzimtzum -- God's creatures had to be made at some epistemic distance from God (lest they be God), allowing room for ignorance/t choices.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

Then he never understood rabbi Yeshua in the first place, radical Torah observance - not its abandonment for pagan ideas!!

[@TheMirabillis]

Don’t agree with Hart. If the end result is, that everyone freely wants God and is united with God, then that is what it could have been from the get go. No sin and evil needed.

[@jackshadow325]

I don't agree with Hart either. Does God creating "rational spirits" necessarily lead to sin and evil? If yes, why? If no, then why did sin and evil happen? Sounds like Hart is suggesting "soul building" theodicy here, which I'm sure he doesn't believe.

[@CTomCooper]

@@jackshadow325It doesn’t lead to evil itself nor to evil overpowering God’s will, but it is that God’s goodness leads to His strength being perfected in a man’s weakness. Adam’s and Eve’s being tempted while in the garden exposed what their latter condition was, that was outwardly perfect in the bounds of a relationship of order under God, but still lacked an indwelling and inward relationship with Him which isn’t simply attained through obedience alone. What mankind inherited from them hereditarily was only the propensity to sin, or to err, because of spiritual separation. That separation is not based on guilt from the original sin, which is only applicable to Adam and Eve. It is based on the knowledge of good and evil compensating for mankind’s spiritual separation and shortcoming in no longer being in a relationship with God based upon order. That entails hardship amidst a chaotic world. Suffering produces endurance, and endurance character, and character hope. The Spirit gives strength to endure. So God values the development of character to achieve a certain hope that man’s spirit will abide in Him, which was not the initial case within the garden.

[@Scrappydoo75]

He allows it so that what is written can be fulfilled.

[@dariofromthefuture3075]

The infinite contains all finite objects, potentials, species, and levels of wisdom. The only thing God can't do - is NOT be infinite. This is an ancient tenant in the Eastern religions. It is all fallenness yes - but the fallenness of world, and man is what creates the rich variety of pleasures, pains, and experiences -- and there is feminine grace in the infinite creator being pushed and stretched by experiencing all of itself through the embodying and nurturing of Creation back into its Self. Just as we don't have children merely to continue the species, but rather to see life anew thru their eyes -- same goes for God and it's Creation. Bring a feminine sensibility to this question -- not a legalistic one-- and it makes perfect sense.

[@stuartkenny3050]

Is St. Mary the Virgin an automata? A robot? She was created without sin and without the ability to sin. Was her free will response to God that of a puppet? If God can create St. Mary without sin, why couldn't He create the rest of us without sin? Does God think we love Him more than St. Mary because we had the chance to sin and she didn't? Or does St. Mary show that God can create beings with both free will and inability to sin?

[@terryschleuse4134]

Where does the Bible say Mary was born without Adamic sin?.

[@valeriebrown3709]

Mary is not a saint and she was definitely born a sinful human just as all of born of man are born sinful and in need of salvation through Jesus.

[@stuartkenny3050]

I guess my question is directed towards Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans.

[@stuartkenny3050]

@@chanting_germ. A perfectly good God would not create a world capable of falling. Only a lesser being could have created the world we see in front of us.

[@shawnm4189]

@@valeriebrown3709 If Mary was not preserved from sin (to be clear: in an anticipatory way by virtue of Christ's later sacrifice) then Jesus' humanity was tainted with sin and his sacrifice was both impure and without redemption. This is what the Church Fathers realized centuries ago when early heretics sought to profane Christ's sacrifice for sin by first denying his humanity then defiling his flesh by claiming he took flesh from a sinful woman. It is why in ecumenical council to preserve the sinlessness of Jesus' flesh they proclaimed her "Theotokos" and by logical extension held her to have been conceived immaculately. No true Apostolic Christian believes otherwise.

[@terryschleuse4134]

"If God is certainly going to save everyone in the end",( this isn't true,any Christian should KNOW that.)

[@valeriebrown3709]

Not everyone is going to be saved in the end. All who call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved. There is no other name under Heaven but Jesus Christ by which mankind can be saved. For those that do not want Christ’s salvation, they must pay the wage for their sin, which is death.

[@melisasanchez177]

Everyone will eventually call on and praise the name of the Lord.

[@ttownsupreme2183]

Valerie....the wages of sin is death....not eternal life in torment. Id advise you to read the entire chapters of the verses you used Acts 4 Romans 6 Romans 9 and realize they are not talking about the afterlife.The theme of a chapter is always consistent Take Acts 4:12.The word salvation triggers a "saved from hell" association.We must realize....The people in Jesus' time didn't need salvation from a place of eternal fiery torment....they needed salvation from judgement God would be bringing at the end of the age.Jesus was that salvation