The Ancient View of Atonement - David Bentley Hart

David Bentley Hart, author of The Story of Christianity, talks about how Christ's death was discussed in the New Testament and the early church.
--
Please consider supporting the Love Unrelenting KZbin channel through Patreon: www.patreon.co...

[@ironclad452]

I regret not having anyone in my life to share this with. The few believers I know well would never accept this. They truly believe in the first definition of the "gospel" mentioned at the beginning. The Ray Comfort version of scaring people into heaven.

[@TheBlueCream]

Ray Comfort has much to answer for.

[@MikeT10101]

I am in the same position. Those I know find this kind of thing objectionable, their fear being that if this aspect is not true it calls into question everything else. In my experience, and I am an unapologetic "originalist", the original taken in the context of being as historically informed as possible, only serves to solidify and reinforce the beauty of Christianity!

[@doug_sponsler]

I want to bump this out of the lower strata of comments, because it's really the crux of the matter. Some people seem to think that the main problem with sin is that it makes God mad at you. If you can be assured that, because of Jesus, God is no longer mad at you, then sin becomes almost irrelevant. It lingers around, sure, but it's not going to send you to hell. It sort of earns its keep by reminding of you of your need for God's mercy. Boys will be boys, and all that. No. The problem with sin is that it kills you. God is mad at sin because he loves you. In Jesus, God binds himself eternally to our humanity, bearing the full weight of its sickness unto death and yet turning that very death into the perfect act of obedience that brings life. In Jesus, divinity reaches down and humanity is drawn up, and the two are joined in a reconciliation that is also an eternal unity. Every atom of sin---the slightest impulse to cruelty, the least vestige of deceit, the subtlest trace of idolatry---is not merely a cancer in the human soul but a blasphemy against the eternal unity of God and humanity in Christ. The saint desires above all that every last trace of sin should be purged from her, that her union with God might be perfect. The saint would gladly hurl himself into hell to kill the last cancer cell of sin hiding in his flesh. Indeed, for such a saint, hell would be nothing other than the bosom of the Father, who is verily a consuming fire. If it is inconceivable that the saint should tolerate any vestige of sin in herself, it is all the more inconceivable that God should be satisfied so long as sin endures in the unrepentant hearts of the damned. An eternal hell populated with unrepentant sinners would be an eternal incubator of sin. Sin that could not be purged from the humanity to whom God is forever united in Christ. Sin that survived the Cross and the empty tomb. Sin no less eternal than God himself. Sin eternally preserved in the souls of the damned would be the ultimate and unanswerable repudiation of the Gospel. An eternal hell is tortures sinners and coddles sin. I do not know how God will save those who reject him in this life. But I know why. I because I know why, I know that he will. Woe to the soul who scoffs at the terrors by which God will separate him from his sin. Take comfort, sinner, and fear: you are condemned to be saved.

[@victoriac.5914]

Very well written. Thank you!

[@henrieecen2938]

Love your last sentence ....you are condemned to be saved!

[@ptt3975]

Wonderful prose. The joy of the Lord is strong in this one.

[@mcnicholas3]

I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write this. You've spoken right to my heart.

[@doug_sponsler]

@@mcnicholas3 I'm so glad to hear that! May we all grow in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit until we reach that perfection of love where fear is no longer possible.

[@stephenbastasch7893]

Unrelenting love is a message that was mostly absent from even my long (Catholic) education of 12 formal years. It was perhaps implied, but not explicitly taught. DB Hart does good work in disseminating the core message.

[@dorinamary7863]

Wow, you were lucky. My formal Catholic education was very explicitly that most of us were going to hell, no matter how good we were trying to be. It was all about us and our good works, and they'd never be good "enough".

[@stephenbastasch7893]

@@dorinamary7863 Interesting... I suppose it differed from era to era and location to location.

[@TheJoeschmoe777]

@@dorinamary7863 It baffles me how anyone can teach or be taught that and not drive themselves to insanity. I'm sorry you had to suffer through that, friend :(

[@daMillenialTrucker]

​@@TheJoeschmoe777God did not give us a spirit of fear ❤ universalism brothers is the way, it's the true message of HOPE. All will be redeemed BUT a life lived on this planet without Jesus is a life lived in hell, to accept Christ as the Messiah is to invite God's authority and protection over your life, without that acceptance there is no protection from God, God doesn't want force Himself on the ones who doubt Him.

[@TheJoeschmoe777]

@@daMillenialTrucker Amen! Anyone who teaches a fear-based "Gospel" is not teaching the Gospel at all. God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and a sound mind - and perfect love casts out fear.

[@Jordan-hz1wr]

Loving this channel! I know it's a niche fan base but it's so so so helpful to me, so I wanted to personally say thank you!

[@LoveUnrelenting]

Thanks! There are many more videos to come.

[@loveandideas7826]

That is so important. Chronicles of Narnia (movie) helped me to understand this. There Aslan gave up his life for Edmund to save him from death. White witch was the one who demanded 'eye for an eye', not Aslan.

[@Joeonline26]

Well spotted, and a good point

[@__-vb3ht]

I've had a few infuriating arguments with evangelicals over this. I've had people use Narnia as an example for penal substitution until I pointed out how it actually portrays something entirely different. Or people suggesting that CS Lewis actually firmly believed in penal substitution, and only chose to portray it differently in Narnia because it's a children's book. They are incapable of allow themselves to be confronted with something that goes against their preconceived notions

[@loveandideas7826]

God's character itself is a reason to believe that He does not require any offerings. I was talking about Chronicles of Narnia just because that movie gave me an idea to believe better. And it doesn't matter what was in C. S. Lewis mind.

[@__-vb3ht]

@@loveandideas7826 Yes, I also don't agree with Lewis but i had a similiar experience where that actually showed me there are more valid answers than just Penal substitution. And in the following discussions with my friends I realised how little they cared about finding out the truth and how much penal substitution and eternal torture are just upheld because no one dares question it. That people would speak for Lewis and deny that he held the opinions he expressed just proved to me how much of a cult the belief in a torturing God is

[@loveandideas7826]

Would you like to share some of your ideas why Jesus died on the cross?

[@MrHwaynefair]

As the song queries, "What the world needs now"? - More Hart! Thanks for sharing this gem!

[@dorinamary7863]

It's a statement.

[@stevenfrasier5718]

I'm a subscriber and I turn 56 today. This upload is a gift. ThanQ & God Bless.

[@LoveUnrelenting]

I hope you have a wonderful birthday!

[@ironclad452]

This was very enlightening! Almost self-evident when I think about it. Thanks for posting this!

[@franciscafazzo3460]

wow ...household of death. best phrase I have heard ever

[@markgrissom]

While I agree with Mr. Hart on literalism, as believers in, and beneficiary's of the Christian civilization, I don't think we spend enough time talking about how and when Christ's message, however poorly or rightly perceived on such large continuum of belief, changed the world for the better. Until we are able to convey this from the lessons of history, we are just squabbling between ourselves.

[@ziryabjamal]

Look forward to the documentary and these clips in the meantime

[@christianuniversalist]

PSA, like infernalism, are beliefs that stain true Christian theology

[@benc6537]

And besmirch God's holy name.

[@ironclad452]

PSA?

[@89bavaro89]

​@@ironclad452 Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory

[@89bavaro89]

The two views that most toxify all other doctrine and life.

[@ironclad452]

@89bavaro89 ahh thank you. I was never able to reconcile this with the doctrine of the Trinity actually. I believed both because they were both considered "essential Christian doctrine". But the truth is it put the Father and the Son at odds in my mind. Why does the Son have to die to appease the wrath of an angry Father?? Why not let the blood of bulls and goats be sufficient? Made sin more powerful than God's decree in my mind. But if sin is an affliction.. something needing to be CURED.. well that makes some sense to me. There's only ONE cure. Death. And Jesus dying as our representative, us being in Christ (which I still don't fully comprehend), well that makes more sense. And makes the Father my Savior as well as the Son. The Father SENDING the cure, the Son BEING the cure. Praise God for universal reconciliation!!!

[@emidior7948]

DBH! Awesome

[@dontaskwhat]

Thanks for sharing

[@paulmelonas7263]

My understanding is that God the creator does not look forward to pouring his wrath out upon his creations, however there is both a requirement and a detail to the requirement to avoid an eternal consequence. The requirement is that an eternal price must be paid. The detail is that the price has to be paid by and from perfection. As I understand the Bible, Christ Jesus fulfilled both the requirement and the detail on my behalf. I could fulfill the requirement, but the detail of the requirement I could never fulfill.

[@user-cz8gi2om3n]

Interesting, the way I've always thought of it is that when one forgives a debt, they take the burden of that loss on themselves, rather than retrieve what is owed to them. Christ's sacrifice is the direct consequence of our iniquity (as Nietzsche would say, ironically, "we have killed him, we are all his murderers") but chose to bear that burden rather than take back what is owed to him.

[@MrStigoe]

Please remove the musical disturbance! The need for that is null. The message is too important for that.

[@joshbanker8743]

I disagree

[@yqafree]

I'd really like to hear about that other issue that was beginning to dawn, that spoken about from the last 30 seconds of the video.

[@Mrm1985100]

The New Testament does actually teach some form of substitutionary/vicarious atonement without necessarily teaching PSA: 'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures' 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

[@stevenhunter3345]

You're imputing your own interpretation onto the text and then pretending it plainly says what you've interpreted it to say. That passage isn't about "vicarious atonement." Christ dying "for our sins" means that He died to save us from our sins. He died on our behalf, but not in place of us, as is so often taught.

[@yelenaangeleski3354]

@@stevenhunter3345 You're playing with words here perhaps because, like many of us, you cannot stomach the barbaric theology of a God who creates a world of sin and then punishes its/his creatures for being as they are. Our sins themselves (most of them, at any rate) have no power to annihilate us or even damn us. Only God could do so, so saying that Christ died FOR our sins means exactly what it says. He died to save us from divine punishment for our sins, which males for substitutionary/vicarious atonement.

[@Adesupzy]

@@yelenaangeleski3354 No He died to destroy death and died to cure our sins. This channel is dedicated to those who do not believe there's a hell as there is no scriptural bases for it.

[@jamesrosskelly]

"3For, among the very first things, I delivered to you what I had also received: that the Anointed died because of our sins, in accord with the scriptures, 4And that he was entombed, and that he was raised on the third day in accord with the scriptures, "The New Testament: A Translation (p. 346). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition. This is Hart's Translation--note "because of" instead of "for" Hart's Greek is hard to challenge. Your translation agreed with the doctrine of the translators.

[@franciscafazzo3460]

@@stevenhunter3345 you need to read the circle you just drew. He died as us, as Head but certainly He bore away something for us....Did he do anything for you. He suffered in your place. Did you suffer wrath. propitiation equals to be appeased.

[@jamesmoriarty9637]

What do you say about the 2nd goat used in the annual day of atonement which was sent out into the desert alive as an offering to Azazel?

[@benjaminwhitley1986]

Having grown up in a Calvinist context and understanding PSA as THE GOSPEL I can see verses that seem to hint at vicarious atonement, however, there are some passages that bring that interpretation into question. The first being when Jesus himself says “Take up your own cross and follow me”. If the gospel is Jesus in my place on the cross, then why would he emphasize our taking up our own cross? Seems like Jesus didn’t advocate for PSA. Secondly, to say that Jesus’ death in some way saves us from divine punishment is actually to void verses that actually speak of divine chastening/disciplining for God’s children like when the NT author says “God chastens (or punishes/disciplines) those whom he loves”.Here is a very real example where Jesus doesn’t save us from divine punishment it seems. Divine punishment or correction or discipline is for our good for as the name Jesus means “He will save his people from their sins” not “from divine punishment”. I am very aware of verses that speak of atonement and blood. I’m not so sure though that PSA is actually the best atonement lense for interpreting the cross.

[@collin501]

He misses some aspects. Certainly there is release from Satan and death, but where's the most important aspect of release from sin? He quoted "where oh death is your power, where oh grave is your sting?" If you read on, it is the sting is sin and the power is the law. So if that is the reference, then Christ paid the ransom to the law and to sin itself. Regarding wrath there is no doubt Christ did something there, but not necessarily by taking it upon himself. But to see that this is indeed an element of atonement, he made peace and reconciliation to the hostility, per Romans 5, 2 Corinthians 5, Ephesians 2, Colossians 1&2. Now the simplest way to understand it is by taking away sin and the law he took away wrath, because sin is the reason for wrath and through the law comes wrath. So why the law and why wrath? These were necessary by the goodness of God, or else the villain would receive immortality and there would be no fail safe to protect from that. The law is the fail safe to protect from eternal evil.

[@charlesrae3793]

What a shame that the view presented at the beginning is so often given as an explanation of the atonement. I have always seen it as a tabloid, graphic novel type of explanation, without any nuance and downright misleading. It's great to see a more in depth, thought out exposition of the real meaning.

[@nathanforrest3483]

What kind of good god would allow an eternal hell to exist? And if life is suffering, couldn't one already say that this life is a kind of hell ? Thats a lot of suffering in life and after death.

[@supercoopers8688]

What about 2 Corinthians 5:21??? The thing about David Bentley is he doesn’t give strong exegetical explanations on verses that do apply penal substitution. I want to know how he will interpret “for” “hyper” in that verse and other verses implying that. I get “Christus Victor” but I think it’s more to it…

[@reeckstar6625]

Christ became sin, that is, He became one with humanity. He came in the "likeness of sinful flesh." He voluntarily died with us because we die. By uniting Himself to us as fully human in birth, life, and death, He became one with man, so that through Him man might become one with God. He becomes us through the incarnation and we become Him through the sacraments. He was born of woman to be man, and we are born in baptism to partake in God's nature. Baptism is our incarnation into God, so to speak. He mingled full humanity and full Divinity in Himself, and united them forever. Christ's sacrifice was becoming man, in it's currently humbled state, to unite man with Divinity, which culminated in the final act of being a man, which is death. Thus, the whole incarnation is the sacrifice, with death being the summit and final sacrifice before His glorification: Philippians 2:5-11 (ESV): 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. The Father did not need to be appeased. That is not the point of the incarnation and death of Jesus. Rather, the point of the incarnation, including death, was to mingle man and God so as to unite them forever. God became what we are so that we can become what He is (to the extent that it is possible).

[@emilesturt3377]

The Orthodox Communions view the uniting of the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ - Who gives Himself as a ransom "to death", to the state of reality in the fallen universe, and Who enters into the place of our shameful condemnation and death (the punishment of exile and the severance of soul from body) and the pleasing, satisfying and worthy Sacrifice and Offering of Himself to Himself - as being the emphasis: the Triune God reordering and recreating of all reality through His fulfilment of all righteousness in the Person of the Son, the good news of the whole of His incarnation which restores our union with Him and rescues us from the powers that bind us. We are covered and cleansed and alive in Him and so spared from "the wrath to come" . . . for in mercy He entered 'our place', that we might live, 'in His' Revelation Ransom Redemption Recapitulation Restoration Recreation Resurrection To the mind of the ancient Church, these words sum up the crux of the matter of the cross and the whole of the Incarnation.... But NOT the Son bearing the wrath / anger of the Father. If wrath is kind of akin to mortality and the sentance of death, then yes, He suffered it and was buried... but rose again on the third day after recapitulating and fulfilling all things, and via the Pure Body of His flesh, condemning sin "in the flesh". . . for He is the "sin offering". Whatever "bearing sin", "became sin", "was laid on Him" actually means in actual reality, in God's sight, we must remember that sin is not a thing. It describes thoughts words and deeds of persons. It is a privation of the good... an abstraction. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"... without the costly giving of a life, there can be no covering of death... "For Love covers a multitude of sins". He is our sacrifice of atonement, the expiratory offering. To the Orthodox, "propitiation" is a problematic word to use, for instance, in 1 John 2:2, as it is easily equated with pagan sacrifice relating to changeable deities who need to be appeased and reconciled (in disposition) to us, as opposed to the God Who was "reconciling the world to Himself" and is already favorably disposed to it: John 3:16. Surely the Cross and Resurrection affected a Cosmic change in ontological reality, as well as the our 'legal' status (metaphors) associated with describing that relational change; but we have to be careful not to miss figurative language / descriptions in Scripture regarding God and sin within the Atonement... for error, heresy and blasphemy shortly follow X

[@blakesun]

The best summary of God and the New Testament is the holiday classic Santa Claus is Coming To Town: 'He sees you when you're sleeping, he sees when you're awake, he sees when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake'. Every thing else is highly intellectual scholars digging in the mines of theology.

[@js1817]

That's childish; and not in a good way. Also, you didn't quote the lyrics right.

[@bradbrown2168]

Captives free or captivity captive? How to parse? Thx

[@mertonhirsch4734]

Christ's death was mechanistic. He was the archetypal/true Passover lamb (that the O.T. Passover prefigured) that was sacrificed (slain) to pay the wages of sin, which is mortal death, and by which mechanism he created a path (Passover) for ALL FLESH from mortal death to resurrection. (For those who have done good, to the resurrection of life and for those who have done evil to the resurrection of damnation). The resurrection is for all flesh. Not only can't it be earned but it can't be avoided. The process of salvation occurs by faithfully uniting yourself to Christ which means to make God's will your will. If humans had never sinned, Christ would not have needed to destroy, death (the wages of sin), but not sinning means not exercising our own will, so faith is submitting entirely to God's will. We have faith to walk the path that he wills us to walk. Western Christianity came to see salvation as how we get into heaven. For the Orthodox, since death is destroyed, we participate in heaven to the degree that we faithfully walk the path of God's will even in this life, so faith, salvation and doing God's will are all the same thing.

[@simonskinner1450]

The sacrifice of Jesus was like a pagan one, but it was only symbolic to teach the need of a man to die to allow redemption in a new covenant. Atonement is indirectly attributed to the Cross.

[@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 )

[@simonskinner1450]

@@theguyver4934 Do you accept that the gospel and Torah were given to Abraham?

[@theguyver4934]

@@simonskinner1450 I do believe that the Torah & gospel were given to jews & christians but not during the time of abraham so i don't know what your asking me

[@simonskinner1450]

@@theguyver4934 Abraham was given both the gospel and Torah, but I am aware that this is denied in Islam. Christianity has many misinterpretations, as there are three witnesses in heaven, one God, one Spirit of God, and our Lord and Judge Jesus. There was a first sin on Earth, but not Original Sin, Adam brought death but Jesus regained access to eternal life in heaven. Those who do not go to heaven must perish as unbelievers, but Hell was reserved for Satan, who went there in AD70 and is no more.

[@theguyver4934]

@@simonskinner1450 I didn't know that jews & christians also believe that the Torah & Gospel were given abraham PBUH as well or that islam denies this as well all i know is that the Torah & gospel are revealed to jews and christians by Allah and they ( jews & christians ) have to judge by them I also don't believe that the text that the jews & christians have has been corrupted\changed but it has been misinterpreted which is why it needs to be reread one of the misinterpretations of the bible is the trinity which is one of the reasons of the decline in christiansity and why people chose islam over christian the trinity was never taught by any of the bible authors and it definitely was never taught by jesus and his apostles so there's a higher chance that the early church fathers never taught it ether

[@beginningtosee7457]

If the Lord knows them that are his- there must be some that are not his- If God chasens those he loves -there must be some God does not LOVE -think about it child of grace.

[@nikitaballas7602]

those that are His in this age ie. the elect, the firstfruits, the ones chosen to rule with Christ. in the end, after the Son delivers the kingdom to the Father, all will be His because God will be All in All. God loves all his creatures, even His enemies, that is a fundamental truth taught in Scripture.

[@beginningtosee7457]

@@nikitaballas7602 Even those he never knew

[@nikitaballas7602]

@@beginningtosee7457 yes even those He "never knew". Of course, these "Christian rejects", will suffer great loss by missing out on the first resurrection etc. They don't make the cut as the elect (many are called few are chosen...) and they will probably be judged harsher than the unbelievers (many stripes), because they knew the truth but in the end they too will be saved "as if by fire". All things belong to Christ. He will make all things new. First the elect (whom He foreknew...) then the rest, each in their own order. But blessed indeed are the elect (the firstfruits of all mankind) as they will rule with Christ and work with Him as He reconciles and subjects everyone unto God.

[@DIBBY40]

I like to think of a tree with ripening fruit. Some are ripe and ready to fall ( they are his chosen), some need more time to ripen (those that are not his at this time) and sometimes the tree needs pruning to bring on more fruit.

[@diansc7322]

God cannot "not love", He is defined as love itself

[@simonskinner1450]

No punishment though that is how it seems, Jesus died to regain access to eternal life for sinners that reoent from sin, the Cross directly made no atonement for sins we are saved by faith.

[@nicktash5592]

"God's children have fallen into slavery in the household of Death."

[@stevenhunter3345]

Hart says we aren't saved by belief and that the New Testament demands more of us than that, and I would agree. He's a universalist, however, so I don't know why, according to his view of things, we need to do anything at all. We're all going to be reconciled with God in the end, so why bother with prayer, fasting, repentance, works of mercy and charity, etc?

[@danielmark4869]

Do pain and suffering have to be endless and eternal to be undesireable, terrible things worth avoiding if possible? If you answer "no" then you have the answer to your question. Just because there's no hell of eternal conscious torment doesn't mean you can't put yourself through plenty of very horrible and totally unnecessary pain and suffering, a state that could fairly be described as hellish, by living a self-centered, godless existence. There is no hell of eternal conscious torment, but pain and suffering can be so bad even on this side of the grave that it can feel like it will go on forever when you're stuck in the middle of it. So to return to your question of why should we have faith and do good works, well, maybe because living a totally self-centered and godless life tends to lead us towards pain and misery ultimately and we want to avoid that if we have any wisdom. And as for those of us who lack wisdom, as William Blake said, "If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise." Suffering is a brutal but effective teacher.

[@stevenhunter3345]

@@danielmark4869 An exceptional answer. Thank you.

[@danielmark4869]

@@stevenhunter3345 Glad it helped you. It's an objection to universalism I've thought about a lot myself. "Well that just means we can do what we want and be saved anyhow" the thinking goes. Well, yes you'll ultimately be saved, but with that attitude you're going to suffer a lot more than you need to in the process of being saved. Universalists need to be more clear that just because there's no eternal hell that doesn't mean there aren't temporary hellish states of existence you can end up in both in this world and the next that you'd much rather avoid if you have any sense. We see people living in a kind of personal hell in this life because of poor decisions, and Jesus spoke of the Gehenna in the next life. Universal salvation doesn't liberate anybody from the consequences of bad decisions. If we make that clearer the objection becomes silly.

[@rathoresrishti8034]

@@danielmark4869 Thanks for the explanation.

[@doug_sponsler]

I can't quote it verbatim, but George MacDonald (Unspoken Sermons) says something to effect that "No one will be saved who would not choose hell over sin." When you meditate your way down to the bottom of that statement, I think it goes a long way toward resolving questions like this. Salvation without repentance is an oxymoron; the question is whether repentance can be eternally refused by a finite soul embraced in the infinite love of God. My 1-year-old will wake at some point tonight, and she will scream and fuss for as I rock her back to sleep. But eventually, I will win and she will be at peace.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

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

[@deemat100]

That desperately awful 'music' in the background makes his voice virtually impossible to hear for anyone like me with mild hearing difficulties.

[@bradbrown2168]

Lead captivity captive?

[@stevenhunter3345]

Hart says we aren't saved by belief and that the New Testament demands more of us than that, and I would agree. He's a universalist, however, so I don't know why, according to his view of things, we need to do anything at all. We're all going to be reconciled with God in the end, so why bother with prayer, fasting, repentance, works of mercy and charity, etc.

[@jasonfishburnmusic]

Because it’s the best* way to live. (Brings us and those around us the most long-term fulfillment etc.) Regardless of what happens after we die.

[@yelenaangeleski3354]

Apokatastasis isn't quite so cheery as you seem to think it: even for a universalist like David Bentley Hart, eventual reconciliation with God will in most cases, for most human beings, entail a post-humous process of purification that will include suffering and repentance. Beyond which, as Jason Fishburn points out, is the question of what is the best way to live for a human being.

[@RobAgrees]

Because the only point of free will in the human being is their assent to identification with the Christ, and by extension, the Father/Platonic One/The Real/Eternality. Through the identification, physical action is the manifestation of this inward transformation of identity, whereas before the identity was as something separate from God, and so at best could only produce behaviors that were selfishly altruistic. The Father is the only Being completely capable of free will and eternal existence and so humanity's nature is insufficient to make truly 'good' actions and so doomed to a temporal ontology. Christ extends the Father's atemporal aspect to us. Through increasing contemplation of this union, the progressive purification of self takes place.

[@koppite9600]

@@jasonfishburnmusic its not the best, avoiding temptations is hard and what DBH is saying makes very little sense. Punishment is a must, you can see it all over the bible and perishing is what awaits the wicked.

[@ohsusanna1111]

The evidence of our obedience/subjection to the spirit is the fruit of the spirit. Those things do not exist in their authentic form outside of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ.