Karl Barth and the Doctrine of Election
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2019
- More than any other contemporary theologian, Karl Barth placed the doctrine of election front and center, reintroducing it to theological discourse. Cornelis Venema describes Barth's revisionist doctrine of election in which God chooses to be both elect man and reprobate in Christ.
This clip is from Christ the Center episode 603 (www.reformedforum.org/ctc603)
There is a dichotomy in everyone. Paul talked about it in Romans 7. The woman (Abigail), her first husband (Nabal) who dies, and the new husband (David). Everyone has Nabal and Abigail. Nabal is the SIN that dwells in us, the wicked guy. And Abigail, the joyful and wise daughter of the Father. But she ended up in bondage under Nabal, and can’t escape until he dies. Christ died on the cross, having been made SIN for us. As Moses lifted up the SERPENT, He was lifted up. Abigail becomes free to marry David.
Thus everyone is elect (Abigail), and everyone is reprobate (Nabal). Abigail is the sheep, Nabal is the goat. The Nabal of everyone together is headed up in the Old Man. The Abigail of everyone is headed up by Christ in the New Man.
amazing that the doctrine of “eternal decree” is not mentioned here as this is Barth’s main problem with Calvin’s doctrine. The term “Universalism” needs to be defined in detail for any coherent discussion on this topic.
I think the early Reformers (Including John Calvin) did not seem to have problems reconciling a strong doctrine of double predestination with an unlimited atonement. Regardless, to me the way I see it is that Christ made a propitiation for sin through faith in his blood, i.e. Romans 3:25. Because of it the atonement is limited solely in the application, not everybody comes to faith, but it is unlimited as far as the death of Christ is concerned. Christ clearly died as a substitute for all men, fulfilled the law perfectly for all mankind, bore the sins of all mankind, but he did all this on condition of faith, I.e. he shed his blood as a propitiation through faith in it. John Murray talks about the redemption accomplished by Christ and the redemption of Christ applied through faith, Christ accomplished redemption for all mankind, but the gift of faith is given to the elect alone. John Murray mistakenly teaches that redemption was accomplished for the elect alone, this creates all sorts of problems to which Barth is reacting. But Barth makes the mistake of teaching that election is universal and not particular. The atonement as I explained is universal and unlimited, but election is particular to a remnant that God keeps for himself as Romans 11 teaches, God applies the redemption that Christ won at Calvary for all men to a few. This is very simple to understand and yet the Westminster Divines failed to see it, Ursinus in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechusm Correctly teaches that Christ satisfied for all as to the sufficiency (Christ died for all because his death is sufficient for all men, he paid for the sins of all men and bore the sins of all men, including Judas Iscariot), and the sole reason not everybody goes to heaven is because there is a condition attached to the death of Christ which is faith (Romans 3:25). So the atonement is limited as to its application, as Ursinus mentions .Christ satisfied for all men as to the sufficiency but not as to the application (which God performs when he justifies the sinner and creates faith in him). It is not complicated, frankly all the works of Karl Barth can be burned because they are based in the false premise of a universal election, but then we must also burn the Westminster Confession and the Canon if Dort that teach the repugnant doctrine of limited atonement that is so offensive to the Word of God.
The Lutheran doctrine of election is possibly the best one developed to date. The election of the elect is unconditional, they come to faith by grace alone solely because God chose them, yet those that perish they perish solely because they reject God’s grace. God does not cause evil, God is the author and finisher or perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2), but God is not the author or cause of unbelief, Sinners resist God’s grace and the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). God does not pass by the reprobate, he wills the salvation of all men, but men resist the will of God and perish. This doctrine of single predestination, where God is the cause of everything good (Specially the gift of faith) but God foresees unbelief but does not cause it by passing by people (reprobation is conditional on man rejecting God’s grace). For lutherans election is unconditional but there is no reprobation that is unconditional, God does not reprobate, instead man of his own free will is the cause of his damnation by rejecting God’s grace. The grace of God is resistible.
Tulip is all Manichean Gnosticism redressed. Reject it all.
It is clear that this gentleman is a theologian and an academic who teaches at some institution of higher learning. And I guess it get the purpose for this discussion on Barth. I am too well educated with multiple degrees. 2 in undergrad and a M.S. in Science of Communication and Hearing disorders (SLP).
Anyways, I came to your channel looking for some real perspective and insight on Karl Barth’s theology. I wanted to know about how he believed and saw the world. Needless to say I’ll keep looking. ~Communication is most effective when the communicators speaks to his audience with words that are more inclusive than exclusive regardless of who vast his verbal lexicon is. IJS.
That’s a great contrast between evangelicalism and neo-orthodoxy.
Evangelicalism reduces the language game to a point that allows everyone to play.
Neo-orthodoxy speaks as a parent to their child by using enough new language to teach them to think for themselves.
I believe the Apostle John explains the doctrine of election well enough for me. Therefore, whatever John believed, I believe. That is my answer to this debate. I believe John believed in election (he would never deny he was chosen - the disciple whom Jesus loved), but he nonetheless picks up the pen and writes so that others might believe too as if he was not going to leave the matter all in God's hands. He zooms in on Jesus teaching of this subject and is content to leave you in knots (John 1:9-13, John 3:1-21, John 6:26-71). He doesn't try to untie the knots. He doesn't try to explain it; he just passes on what Jesus said.
One statement he heard Jesus say may summarize it all for me. v37 makes me wonder if Jesus was referring to one group of people or two. If two then this is my answer to those who would ask what I believe about election. Maybe others can shed some light here.
John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me [GROUP 1: passive participants] will come to Me, AND the one who comes to Me [GROUP 2: active participants] I will certainly not cast out.
Seems as if Jesus is saying not to get hung up on whether you are elect or not. Instead, come to Me. The Father will not reject you if you do.
Right after this He expands this a bit...
John 6:39-40 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me [GROUP 1: passive participants] I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father [same will but the other side of the coin], that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him [GROUP 2: active participants] will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
I can see where the bridge connects to the land on this side of the bay and I can see where the bridge connects to the land on the other side of the bay, but a cloud obscures my view of where they connect in between. It's a mystery.
Soooooo there is no hell?
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." Does that mean they won't really perish, but will wish they could?
I'm with David Bentley Hart on Christian universalism. All are saved in the end. The power of God's love, His enduring mercy will eventually win all humanity and the cosmos to Himself. Human freedom ultimately is no match for God's plan. David B. Hart would say that Barth and Hans Von Balthazaar are inconsistent and logically flawed in declining to admit universalism. Just consider, if there is one and only one human who is condemned for all eternity the level of their suffering and torment would far outweigh all human suffering of every human that ever lived, BY FAR! I have supreme confidence in the absolute sovereignty of God's love. If this wasn't so why would Paul conclude in 1 Corinthians 15 that having achieved the restoration of all things, the Son hands the kingdom to the Father so that God is all in all. It would be incorrect to say God is all in all if 1 human is left out. That human would be like a god, which would be a dualistic conclusion. No. God wins. A mountain of scriptures confirm this and a correct theology demands it.
Totally agree!
And me, anything else is a distortion of God's character.
I’m hoping you’re not trying to defend Calvin’s view of Double Predestination/Limited atonement here - not sure you are, so full benefit of the doubt :)
Because let’s just cut to the chase, if that’s a biblical teaching that can be clearly supported by scripture we might as well all pack up and leave Christianity right now.
That position taken to its logical conclusion is completely inconsistent with a God who is love (and you can’t go down the line of saying we just don’t understand love and justice, because the clear biblical picture of love (and justice) is the person of Christ (in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells) - and thats not a picture of a God who predestines people to Hell from the beginning of time to torture them forever and ever to display his glory and love for the elect.
This isn’t just an emotional or philosophical issue is a matter of simple LOGIC.
We all like to talk in terms of logic and reason, which is completely valid. But I see a need to combine confession with our offerings to provide witness.
In my ignorance, I instinctively incline against universalism. But the most significant argument I hold in my heart when I want to justify my wretchedness is, "why did you make me, only to condemn me to eternal Hell". This argument only ever arises from my pride and when I'm in darkness. Interestingly, when I'm fearful because of the darkness, the thought of the truth of Justice and being judged rightly and fairly brings comfort in spite of the damning implication.
Instinct aside, but subjective nonetheless, It's the stability of the framework of truth that attracts me to the Word on an intellectual basis, but my disobedience sustains my shame.
Recently, my dissonance has been resolved as a response to my persistent discomfort. It was revealed to me that although I clung to the cross, I did not cling to the promises of the helper. This insight inspired me to have a renewed focus on obedience and an emboldened hope that my resolve would be sustained by the Spirit.
So to sum it up, my fear and also my vanity led me to be attracted to the Word, but the word exposed my faithlessness. My love for comfort, security, and pleasure created a dissonance that only the Word could resolve. That very resolution empowered a growth in my faith. So, as far as my experience is concerned, as subjective as it is, it leaves me with the conviction that God is indeed the author and sustainer of my faith despite my inclination to constantly usurp Him.
I think that the traditional view of hell as eternal conscious torment is your burden, not the doctrine of election Andrew.