Dr. David Bentley Hart on That All Shall Be Saved - Session 4: Meditation 4

This week, we are releasing audio from a book study of That All Shall Be Savedfeaturing its author, Dr. David Bentley Hart. The book study took place at St. Benedict's Anglican Catholic Church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This is the fourth session.
You can send your feedback and questions to [e-mail] or reach out to us on Twitter @sacramentalists. Be sure to join our Communion of Patreon Saints for only $5 a month: / thesacramentalists

[@amirrezabagheri1946]

David Banetly Hart! You're the best Philosopher👏👏❤️

[@gfujigo]

DBH is the man! A gift from God to humanity.

[@EasternRomeOrthodoxy]

You are a lost gullible soul who follow false idols, who teach you there's no objective reality, you need to repent. What *Dominic Morrow's* testimony, if that doesn't wake you up, I don't know what will.

[@Jonathan-si2nd]

Great discussion. And I am no NASCAR fan.... But, try doing left turns for hours up to 195mph with little distance between you and others' cars, resulting in changes in aerodynamics, while all are trying to be in front at the end. Kind of makes hitting a leather covered ball with a stick of wood seem like taking a nap.

[@wierdpocket]

At around 16 minutes David gives the example of the “involuntary” love that a parent has for a child as an example of why it’s false that we must choose to love. He then hedges saying, “well, a healthy soul anyway will love their child involuntarily”, laughs, and moves on. But it’s exactly this “healthiness of soul” that is in question here. We are *not* healthy, and it’s precisely the choice of faith in God in our unhealthy state (in the darkness, not seeing all things) that allows for our healing.
Besides this, love isn’t something that is entirely involuntary even in a close mother/child relationship. Affection for the child can easily turn into a clinging form of control and selfishness wherein the good of the child is substituted for the mother’s selfish desire to “have” the child for her own. Love must always come forth from the will because we must choose the good of the other, a choice that often requires the laying down of one good for another.
So I think David both gets wrong the idea that love is involuntary and that we are not somehow unhealthy and cannot rightly choose the good. We may not be able to see and choose goodness itself, but we CAN choose to trust a God we do not see fully, and this faith is what *leads* us into full health and full vision.

[@nickjamesb2051]

Being unhealthy in our soul, as you say, would touch on his other point, about insanity, that we cannot rationally reject God if we are of sound mind. In order for freedom to be freedom, we must be rational and of sound mind, otherwise our choices are not really free.

[@bman5257]

Universalism is more biblical and historical than the CS Lewis closed door from the inside explanation, which everyone pressed to defend Hell uses. Those who are punished in the gospels frequently beg not to be, and are not expecting punishment, but expecting to see God. Think of those who cry Lord Lord in Matthew 7 or the widows with the lamps. Either this isn’t eternal hellfire they’re being sent to, or CS Lewis locked door from inside is false, or both.

[@mariorizkallah5383]

Origenism is a heresy

[@阳明子]

nope

[@daniel_so_you_know]

You know what they said about the guy who cries heresy Haha

[@seankennedy4284]

And your assertion is hearsay.

[@pedrom8831]

It is, and it seems to be a very different thing to what Origen taught

[@bman5257]

You’re not being helpful to the discussion, if you don’t define Origenism.