The Doctrine of Election: Calvin vs. Barth vs. Luther vs. Schleiermacher
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- Comparing the doctrine of election in Karl Barth, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Friedrich Schleiermacher.
Enjoy my work? Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/MorrisonSDM
My book on Barth: amzn.to/3w0SPMq
My book on Schleiermacher: amzn.to/3daVZEK
Visit my website: www.sdmorrison.org
Thanks for the info. In the past I was in the Luther/Calvin stream of thought but in recent years, solidly in the Schleiermacher/Barth camp.
Thanks for watching!
Another excellent presentation! I look forward to more.
Thanks for watching!
First video I've seen from this channel. Fantastic presentation! I look forward to looking through the rest of the channel.
Thanks, Ryan!
Very interesting summary. Thank you. One remark though, if I may. For M. Luther, what God foreknows he foreordains. So it can be shown that there is very little difference between Luther's actual position and Calvin's. The main difference lies between Lutherans and Calvinists. Lutherans believe in single predestination and Calvinists in double, that is true. But Luther himself wrote in The Bondage of the Will that God both predestines those who are saved and those who are damned and those who sin do so by the unchangeable will of God. In his example about Judas, Luther writes : "If God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas became a traitor of necessity, and it was not in the power of Judas or of any creature to act differently, or to change his will, from that which God had foreseen. It is true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the work of God, brought into being by His omnipotence, like everything else. . . .If you do not allow that the thing which God foreknows is necessarily brought to pass, you take away faith and the fear of God, you undermine all the Divine promises and threatenings, and so you deny Deity itself!" Scholars who study Luther according the Concord paradigm (the Book of Concord was compiled 34 years after Luther's death) read the Lutheran position into Luther's texts, while those who read Luther according to the Augustinian paradigm admit that Luther never actually deviated from Augustine's double predestination model.
Thanks for this clarification! I have heard similar feedback from other Luther scholars. TBH I am not an expert in Luther, so I appreciate the insight!
Great break down brother! 🔥💯
Thanks!
QUESTIONS:
1. Who does the divine decree address? (0:32)
A. Calvin & Luther ( 0:36)
B. Schleiermacher (0:40)
C. Barth ( 0:44)
2. Is predestination single or double? (0:52)
A. Luther (0:55)
B. Calvin (1:01)
C. Schleiermacher (1:06)
D. Barth ( 1:09)
3. Who are the elect? (1:16)
A. Luther (1:18)
B. Calvin (1:22)
C. Schleiermacher (1:30)
D. Barth (1:33)
4. Who are the reprobate? (1:36)
A. Luther (1:39)
B. Calvin(1:41)
C. Scleiermacher (1:45)
C. Barth (2:33)
5. What is the role of death in election? (2:43)
A. Luther and Calvin (2:47)
B. Schleiermacher (2:52)
C. Barth (3:24)
6. Is salvation universal or particular? (3:46)
A. Luther (3:53)
B. Calvin (4:00)
C. Scleiermacher (4:08)
D. Barth (4:17)
Thanks very good presentation.
Excellent and very helpful!
Thanks for watching!
Well done.
So good!
Thanks, Paul!
Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
What is the divine decree?
This is a very good summary. I hope you would do something on Pannenberg some day.
Thanks, Avweroswo! I haven't read enough Pannenberg to discuss his work in any meaningful way, but I do plan to study him more seriously one day... but it may be a while.
A helpful summary for those of us who have already studied the issues…
you are correct, Barth owes many debts to Schiermacher. I have always felt that Barth stands on the shoulders of Schiermacher
Is this your library? I’m jealous! I have a nice collection, but I see quite a few titles that I lack behind you. Nice!
Thanks! Yeah, I’m quite proud of it. I love to read.
@@StephenDMorrison I can’t bring myself to digitize. I see the value. I especially see the value when I’m culling some large block of text; copy/paste would be nice. However, I imagine that would be less intimate and limit my ability to internalize a text. I give a hearty Barthian “Yes” to physical books!
I paused this video to study the shelves in your study. I often pause videos & movies to analyze a book shelf, or a record collection. I’m sure that I’m not alone in this habit.
I didn’t notice any Kierkegaard on your shelves. He’s my all-time favorite!
Anyway, thanks for the content!
@@elt-on I can relate! I do read kindle/iBooks but always prefer physical books. And yes, I like Kierkegaard as well! I’m eventually planning to write about him.
I see Robert Jenson books. Awesome.
I like Jenson a lot! I plan to eventually study him more thoroughly and then write about his theology for my plain English series.
Romans 11:32, in context, seems to be referring to the Jews specifically, as the surprising answer to the questions raised in Romans 9, regarding God's faithfulness to the Jews. I'm not sure how it's exegetically sound to read a universal ending state to salvation by lifting this verse out of the context of the textual unit it's found in.
Appreciate your knowledge of these theologians! It's a lot of work!
This is definitely an important point. Barth has a long section in CD II/2 on Israel that you might find interesting. Though, to your point about a universal reading, I think it is not just that passage that these figures are reading that way but a larger tendency of the nature of election in the Bible. For example, the blessing of Abraham was framed as a blessing for the whole world through him and his descendants. That is repeated with the covenant as Israel was a priestly nation. The idea is that their election is not exclusive but for the sake of the world, which is a motif Schleiermacher picks to make the universal case for election. Emil Brunner also makes the case of that being the Biblical doctrine of election in his Christian Dogmatics, which I quote here: www.sdmorrison.org/double-predestination-is-unbiblical-emil-brunner/.
@@StephenDMorrison How does one distinguish between election as intended for the world, but still maintain clear categories of eternal exclusion from the expansion of Israel? I see the universal extension trajectory you refer to above, in Israel surprisingly expanding her tents to envelop the nations, and Eden being restored in a new humanity tied to a New cosmopolitan Jerusalem, while still maintaining recognizable ethnic restoration to covenant with Jesus in Romans 11. But, I also see clear warnings for people in Jesus' own generation, for the difficulty of attaining to eternal life being like a narrow road for the covenant community compared to a wide road leading to destruction. So it seems possible to theologically construct something like a hypothetical universalism only by a systematics that lowers some of the "enduring"/"eternal" language associated with the dichotomous state of the damned, compared to those that trust in Christ and bear fruit, as he puts it in John 15.
Is the idea that the doctrine as articulated here is taking premises like: a) the expansion of the promise to Abraham to envelop the world, b) the exclusion of the ethnic Israelites from belief and exposure to God's hardening leading to the revelation of the promises to Israel being rejected by Israelites to enable the salvation of the Gentiles and their inclusion in a global Israel that was the archetype behind ethnic Israel (and after ethnic Israel eventually is driven to jealousy by the Gentiles, the world of Jews and Gentiles), to c) conclude that a trajectory of a new humanity in Christ for all is fitting as an escalation in expansion, even those who don't know Christ, and create the foundation for d) the potential eschatological universal salvation to all as not opposing any texts on eternal conscious torment?
In other words, what do we do with texts like: Isaiah 66:22-24? Or Revelation 14:11 (cf. Isaiah 34:10), or Matthew 25:41? Does the "no God behind Christ" only apply to the Christ of the Incarnation and Resurrection and the ethics of his life? How does Barth understand the OT revelation of YHWH, and Christ's reliance on the OT revelation for his own doctrine of God?
Thanks for the clarity of thought and the help here again.
@@georgeluke6382 Barth takes seriously God's self-disclosure to Israel but stresses that for Christian theology, there can be no God other than the one revealed in Christ, ie, that proper Christian* theology begins with Christ as revealed in both Old and New Testaments. He is mostly working against the liberal tendency to begin with human speculation about God as a source of revelation. He very much stressed the importance of the OT.
As far as universalism is concerned, that becomes a point of exegesis. I, personally, think there is a valid universalist reading of those texts. Recently, David Bently Hart has made a case for that, but others have before him. So the systematic move that both Schleiermacher and Barth make toward a universalist reading of election can fit well without that sort of exegesis. Though you would have to consult their respective works to see how exactly they interpret those texts. But yes, their work does lead to a universalistic reading, even if Barth himself did not claim universalism.
@@StephenDMorrison Thank you again!
Here’s a thought experiment. Let’s remove Augustine’s soteriology and what would all of these theologians have believed?
This is a very good video presentation. In my opinion, I think the Western tradition does a good job in questioning the juridical elements of Christian theology. The Eastern tradition ignores this but it is to its detriment because the legal categories are there in scripture. But I also think the Western tradition makes a mistake as a starting point for how the believer relates to God, if that makes sense. In my understanding, the monergistic elements of the Calvinist tradition is the wrong move to make. It leads to too many problems that dilutes the Gospel of its power. I believe the best way to start is through Christology, particularly the hypostatic union and Christological debates of the seven ecumenical councils. I believe the Eastern tradition was right in starting there because the person of Christ determines the trajectory of the new life Christians adopt after baptism. The other central doctrine to start with is original sin, but I believe that has more to do with the non-believer BEFORE becoming a Christian. I hope that makes sense. Take care and God bless you!
Owen, thank you for these reflections! I think you are right about starting with Christology. God bless you!
It's amazing how man defines words in the Bible by their own volition. One should define Bible words by the usage IN the Bible. The elect is clearly Israel. See Isaiah 42:1; 45:4; 65:9; Matthew 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:22, 27; Luke 18:7). It can refer to the Jewish remnant of the tribulation, which is still Israel (Romans 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28). It is not hard if one simply believes the English words of THE Bible. Man's definitions fall under private interpretation.
Election in the scriptures is:
1) Jesus Christ the Elect One
2) The Elect nation of Israel
3) Believers IN Christ for Christian SERVICE
4) Individuals chosen or elected to SERVICE not salvation.
The Augustinian doctrine of election is incredibly man-centred in that it’s all about them being elected.
Whereas scripture also has Christ as being the Elect One and Israel being the Elect Nation.
When asked what the doctrine of election is why do they default to themselves instead of defaulting to Christ?
... According to Isaiah 42:1 Jesus Christ is God’s elect servant who shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles:
ISAIAH 42:1
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; MINE ELECT, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
************************************
... According to Isaiah 45:4 the nation of Israel is God’s elect:
ISAIAH 45:4
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and ISRAEL MINE ELECT, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
************************************
...According to Titus 1:1 BELIEVERS in Christ are called Elect and again they are elect to SERVICE.
TITUS 1:1
1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the FAITH OF GOD’S ELECT, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness.
(You can’t have faith from before the foundation of the world).
@@franciscafazzo3460 Yup Judas and Cyrus and the angels were all chosen to service.
Thank you for confirming and proving the biblical conclusions I posted.
Reading the verses you cited I cannot reach the conclusion that you reach. There is indeed a difference in the purpose or reason God chooses people for, but I think you are pushing the idea that there is a difference between God choosing for “service” and for “salvation”, I may agree with you in the sense that God “elected” certain people for service without necessarily “saving” them, so someone can be called for “service” and not for salvation. However, the texts in their context indicate what that the election is meant for. For example, you may notice an enormous similarity between these two texts:
Romans 9:11b,12a
“…so that God’s purpose according to election might stand- 12 not from works but from the one who calls”
Here it mentions that he who is elected is also called, and you would say that he is indeed but just “to service.” ?
But Rom. 8:30 says:
And those he predestined (elected), he also called; and those he called, he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.
Here he is joining “election” with “call” and the context is sufficient to understand that he refers to “salvation.” How do we know? Because it says that those same ones that God chose and called also JUSTIFIED, justified for their service or for their salvation? and glorified (will those who are called just for service some day be glorified?)
Later in verse 33 it refers to the chosen ones and says that Jesus died, rose again, and intercedes for them. Does that sound to you like something Jesus would do for people he elected for mere service separate from salvation?
God chooses us for salvation and also for service. Forcing us to choose one or the other is to create a false dichotomy.
@@saulvelasco410 The form of the word “election” is found 223x in scripture using 5 different words.
2 words n Hebrew in the Old Testament and 3 words in Greek in the New Testament.
Not once out of 223 occurrences is election ever unconditional election to salvation of an individual from before the foundation of the world.
These words are :
1) {H977} בָּחבָּחַר bāḥîr - 162x
2) {H972} - בָּחִיר (From בָּחַר H977) bāḥar -13x
3) {G1586} - ἐκλέγομαι eklegomai - 21x
4) {G1588} -ἐκλεκτός (From G1586 - ἐκλέγομαι) eklektos - 23x
5) {G1589} -ἐκλογή (From G1586 - ἐκλέγομαι)
eklogē - 7x
Not once out of 223 occurrences is election ever unconditional election to salvation of an individual from before the foundation of the world.
If you want I can copy and paste every single instance and you’ll see that not once is it in reference to an individual unbeliever being unconditionally chosen to become a believer.
@@saulvelasco410 H977 - בָּחבָּחַר
162x
Transliteration - bāḥîr
Pronounced - baw-kheer'
The KJV translates Strong's H977 in the following manner:
choose (77x), chosen (77x), choice (6x), choose...out (5x), acceptable (1x), appoint (1x), excellent (1x), chosen men (1x), rather (1x), require (1x), not translated.
H972 - בָּחִיר (From בָּחַר H977)
13x
Transliteration - bāḥar
Pronounced - baw-khar'
The KJV translates Strong's H972 in the following manner:
chosen (8x), elect (4x), chose (1x).
G1586 - ἐκλέγομαι
21x
Transliteration - eklegomai .
Pronounced ek-leg'-om-ahee
The KJV translates Strong's G1586 in the following manner:
choose (19x), choose out (1x), make choice (1x).
G1588 -ἐκλεκτός (From G1586 - ἐκλέγομαι) 23x
Transliteration - eklektos
Pronounced - ek-lek-tos'
The KJV translates Strong's G1588 in the following manner:
elect (16x), chosen (7x).
G1589 -ἐκλογή (From G1586 - ἐκλέγομαι)
7x
Transliteration - eklogē
Pronounced - ek-log-ay'
The KJV translates Strong's G1589 in the following manner:
election (6x), chosen (1x).
@@saulvelasco410 ROMANS 8:29
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN.
1) QUESTION: What does the phrase mean when it says, “👉THAT HE MIGHT BE👈 THE FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN.”?
2) QUESTION: What does the word “FIRSTBORN”mean?
3) QUESTION: “WHEN” exactly did Christ become the “firstborn”?
Q: WHO are the “many brethren” that are referred to in Romans 8:29.
If “He” (Jesus) was the “firstborn among many brethren” when He rose from the dead on a very specific date 2000 years ago, then that would obviously exclude anyone born AFTER the cross such as you and I as being part of the “many brethren” referenced in this passage.
When Jesus rose from the dead how could Jesus be the first born among people who didn’t exist yet such as you and I?
Clearly this passage is talking about those who died in faith BEFORE Christ.
He was the firstborn among THOSE people SPECIFICALLY.
These are the OT saints whom God foreknew in the past BEFORE Christ and whom God predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son BECAUSE of their faith, even though Christ had not yet come to this earth.
They died in FAITH and were predestined according to Romans 8:28,29 to be “conformed to the image of God’s Son” even though they lived in a time PRIOR to Christ.
So when Jesus rose from the dead and lead captivity captive and redeemed all who died in faith before Him, He was then AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME IN HISTORY the firstborn among all of them of has died in faith BEFORE Him.
He was the firstborn of these “many brethren.”
They were still waiting in Abraham’s bosom for Christ and had not yet been re-born spiritually because death and the grave were not conquered yet.
This simple fact confirms even further that those being talked about in Romans 8:28,29 were those who had died in faith prior to Christ and were counted among those referered to as the “many brethren” in verse 29.
*God predestined these men that lived before Christ that they would STILL be conformed to the image of His Son EVEN THOUGH they had lived prior to Christ.*
So when Christ rose from the dead He would be the first born among all of them whom He lead out of Abraham’s bosom.
QUESTION: Are we today in 2023 counted among the “many brethren” in Romans 8:29 that Christ was the firstborn among?
A: Of course not because Christ rose from the dead 2000 years ago and it was at that SPECIFIC TIME in history that He became the first born of these many brethren who had lived before Him.
So He was only the firstborn among the many brethren that lived BEFORE Him and NOT those who still had not yet come into existence like you and I.
What do you think 1 CORINTHIANS 15:20-23 means?
20 But now is Christ 👉RISEN👈 from the dead, and become the 👉FIRSTFRUITS👈 OF THEM THAT SLEPT.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: CHRIST THE FIRSTFRUITS; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
REVELATION 1:5
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the FIRST BEGOTTEN of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,