1. What is election for Karl Barth? (0:52) A. Not abstract decree or mysterious decision(0:56) B. Person of Jesus Christ(1:03)(1:15) C. Sum of the Gospel(1:11) D. Not abstract decree (1:32) it is the Person of Jesus Christ: the election of God(1:38) 2. Jesus Christ, the elected human being (1:56) in our place God who elects (2:30) and only then human beings elected by the elected God in Christ Revealed in Christ who is the will of God for humanity. God wills our God(2:50) The content of God's word(3:19) Jesus Christ is the One electing God and elected Man(3:40) Both sides of the covenant are fulfilled and upheld in him(3:45) Jesus Christ, the rejected One also in our place(4:25) 3. Barth vs. Calvin (4:44) in election Calvin's double predestination as too abstract and speculative(4:55) Barth aims to be more faithful to the scripture has to say about election!(5:00) Election is the Person of Christ (5:18) and the sum of the Gospel(5:23) Barth recognised the fatal flaw of Calvin's doctrine of election(5:25) which is that it is too abstract and not centred enough on Jesus Christ as the revelation of God. In electing God no abstract decree(5:40) Takes the question election out of the realm of abstract speculation to the individualisation in the person (6:00) of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man(6:15) not distant from humanity but becomes flesh of our flesh and bone of our bones(6:25) Both elected and rejected One(6:30) (7:55) Christ rejected or reprobate for our sake Meaning in short(8:32) doctrine of election as the sum of the Gospel(9:04) Why Barth's doctrine of election is revolutionary?(9:43) Doctrine of election placed within the doctrine of God(11:20) To whom does the election apply?(12:23) is secondary from Barth's point of view. The primary question is "Who is God who elects and what does knowledge of God tell us about the nature of election? " God's will is to be our God, to be for us and not against us(13:03) Proclamation: God wills to be our God(13:15) Doesn't this mean universalism?(14:24) It doesn't mean all will be saved(14:41) Karl Barth isn't Universalist.(15:10) God cannot be objectified (15:24) God's free , theologians should honour the freedom of God(16:30) No theological right to set limits set to the lovingkindness of God(17:03) Barth answers! No more apprehension or fears(18:30)
It seems like Carl Bart and those like him are trying to stay in the lanes of traditional conservative Christian dogma but finding a light at the end of the tunnel out of the complex maze of soteriological ideology that has been amassing since Augustine. All this complexity to arrive at what the birds and the flowers already know: God loves us and gives us all that we need. All self created suffering is simply a failure to rest in that simple fact. This is what I've found, at least.
I haven't read Barth, but I find the idea of double predestination with Christ as the elected and rejected very interesting. Election is such a big and uncertain question, but I love how strongly Christological Barth's outlook is. It's quite beautiful. I'd be interested in more from him or on universalism or heaven/hell more broadly. I've been loving your videos and your blog posts. Keep going!
Thanks for watching! I’m glad you’ve been enjoying my videos. Barth’s view is quite beautiful. I am hoping to do a longer series on universalism, but I have a long list at the moment. :)
This is a wonderful video just learning about Barth need to get your book too just read Douglas Campbell and Jon DePue new book closely related subject thx Stephen🙏
Our reading group is just starting CD vol 2 pt 2, and I would echo the first commentary's comment. I hope to buy your T.F. Torrance book soon. Our reading group's Barth guru, Dr. Marty Folsom, leads a Torrance zoom discussion group.
Thanks for your comment! I know Marty, and I was interviewed by the TFT zoom group at one point, too. Happy reading!
3 ปีที่แล้ว +3
Such a valuable channel this is. Just like if it was taylored for me. I'm not a professional theologian, but I'm deeply interested in 20th century tehologians and quality but accessible content about them are quite rare. Can I anticipate a Paul Tillich in plain English-book?
Hi Stephen would love for you to give a review on Keith Ward ‘s new book Karl Barth on Religion A Critique .I think he’s off on Barths view on Election hope you will do a video on it . 😃
So often any doctrine or interpretation that suggests greater love or more people saved is seen as a big problem or "universalism". As if that would be some kind of horrible thing or a betrayal. I imagine people are just trying to be honest with what they perceive to be the hard teachings of Jesus and other passages of scripture, or their concept of God's holiness. My experience with sharing the idea of christian universalism or at least hoping that god will save all is often times met with a knee jerk offendedness or anger. But the more I learn, it seems like the doctrines of salvation/election/afterlife are not as concrete as we would like them to be.
@@StephenDMorrison Its even more unacceptable to the reformed calvinists. Their religious identity is centered around the doctrine of election and their faith is expressed by an intense pietism, religious zeal and a deep humility that God has chosen them over others. I think this particular view of election is hard to disavow because in their eyes, doing so would be an act of pride; to diminish God's glory displayed in his sovereign choice to elect and punish. Barth's take is very refreshing tho. Are his interpretations of election a result of him seeking out the biblical authors original intent? Or is he just trying to make philosophical sense of doctrinal concepts? It seems like theologians maybe do a bit of both? Im curious if the early church would read pauls letters and come to the same conclusions that Barth did.
@@zachr0 Yes, you may be right about that. And as far as Barth goes, it is from being faithful to Scripture and also reflecting theologically. There is no such thing as a "plain reading" of the Bible, and so sustained and critical reflection is necessary. For Barth, that means reflecting on the revelation of God, Jesus Christ. He outlines a Christological method for theological work in his Church Dogmatics.
@@zachr0 I like Hart. I haven't read too much from him, but I did read the universalism book and his NT translation. I think he is right about a lot of things in both books. To be upfront, even though Barth is not a universalist, it's probably fair to say that I am one. Though of course, it is a matter of definition. But I agree with Moltmann on this issue. Ultimately, universalism is a question God can and will answer. But for me, it is the most consistent interpretation of Scripture. And I think Hart's book does a good job at showing that.
I think that Barth’s Christological understanding/assertion of Election helps clear up Augustine/Calvin’s confusion on the issue. If God’s election is wrapped up in the One that humanity itself is wrapped up and contained in then, logically I think, ipso facto humanity as a whole is in His election. (Hope that makes sense)
There's a lot of debate on whether Barth was a universalist or not. For Barth, it is a mystery that we cannot know if anyone will be excluded from salvation. But he stresses that the job of a theologian is not to exclude any but to witness to the fact that God's grace is exceedingly greater than we can think or imagine. So Barth has been called a "hopeful" universalist.
For those who uphold "the way", of course there is no other God behind Jesus to fear; John 10:29-30. Not but; but and, Matthew 7:21 & 2Corinthians 13:5. Some theologians are truly gifts from above, "BUT" God's bible and authorship must be a professing believers primary council, and it's full revelation. We should not hinge our understanding of this "abstract doctrine" on any one experts conclusion alone. Only God's bible can hold that position.
Yes, God must "remain free in our theology" but he cannot be "freed from himself" who is love. To say Jesus is reconciler of all yet not all are saved does seem to be a contradiction.
Thank you for the informative video on Karl Barth's view of election. I just have to say this. I think Barth's doctrine is very clever but it ultimately doesn't get away from the fundamental questions the Augustinian doctrine answers very clearly. Firstly, I think Barth was heavily influenced by German philosophy, particularly Kant, in his understanding of natural theology and divine revelation. Barth's understanding that God cannot be an object of our understanding but only of His understanding is very Kantian in his noumenal/phenomenal distinction and also very Aristotelian with Aristotle's doctrine of pleasure in the Nicomachean Ethics. Yet Barth holds that the doctrine of election does not apply to individual persons but to all of humanity through Christ, who was elected by God. Thus through Christ's election is humanity elected as well. With this understanding, I find Barth potentially contradictory and too obscure in his theology and I don't find it a great contribution to the doctrine of election. Barth holds that God does not reveal himself in nature but in revelation from God to the individual. With that understanding, with Barth's doctrine of election, it would either lead inescapably towards universalism with Origen of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa in "Apokatastasis" or that the doctrine of election applies to individuals-- a la Augustine-- since only God can reveal this revelation to human beings or God refrains from revealing it to individuals altogether until He finds it appropriate. In either direction, Barth's theology presents more questions than answers and it doesn't help that Barth is too abstract and obscure in his language. This was just my understanding of Barth. Please let me know if I went wrong. Take care and God bless you!
Calvin did not think election was a horrible decree. How can it be horrible the punishment of the wicked ? Vengeance is mine says the Lord, that is a beautiful doctrine that encourages us to love our enemies and know that God will destroy them. I love Romans 12:20 that tells us that by feeding our enemies we heap burning coals on their heads for their destruction by almighty God. There is no comfort in a God that loves all, specially my enemies. But whether there is comfort or not, it does not matter, it is simply not the God of the Bible that will unleash his wrath on the ungodly on the day of judgment.
I think you misunderstood what Calvin taught. Basically, he believes God creates a person destined to be evil, not worthy or able to seek salvation. Of God does this, then what does that say about free will.
Your short presentations, Stephen, are very helpful. Thank you!
So very well explained. Much gratitude.
Didn’t even make it 2 minutes in and my heart exploded for joy at this good news!
This is very helpful to understand Barth's core thought on election. Thank you for such a good job!
Thanks for watching! Glad the video was helpful.
1. What is election for Karl Barth? (0:52)
A. Not abstract decree or mysterious decision(0:56)
B. Person of Jesus Christ(1:03)(1:15)
C. Sum of the Gospel(1:11)
D. Not abstract decree (1:32) it is the Person of Jesus Christ: the election of God(1:38)
2. Jesus Christ, the elected human being (1:56) in our place
God who elects (2:30) and only then human beings elected by the elected God in Christ
Revealed in Christ who is the will of God for humanity. God wills our God(2:50)
The content of God's word(3:19)
Jesus Christ is the One electing God and elected Man(3:40) Both sides of the covenant are fulfilled and upheld in him(3:45)
Jesus Christ, the rejected One also in our place(4:25)
3. Barth vs. Calvin (4:44) in election
Calvin's double predestination as too abstract and speculative(4:55)
Barth aims to be more faithful to the scripture has to say about election!(5:00)
Election is the Person of Christ (5:18) and the sum of the Gospel(5:23)
Barth recognised the fatal flaw of Calvin's doctrine of election(5:25) which is that it is too abstract and not centred enough on Jesus Christ as the revelation of God. In electing God no abstract decree(5:40)
Takes the question election out of the realm of abstract speculation to the individualisation in the person (6:00) of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man(6:15) not distant from humanity but becomes flesh of our flesh and bone of our bones(6:25) Both elected and rejected One(6:30) (7:55) Christ rejected or reprobate for our sake
Meaning in short(8:32) doctrine of election as the sum of the Gospel(9:04)
Why Barth's doctrine of election is revolutionary?(9:43)
Doctrine of election placed within the doctrine of God(11:20)
To whom does the election apply?(12:23) is secondary from Barth's point of view. The primary question is "Who is God who elects and what does knowledge of God tell us about the nature of election? "
God's will is to be our God, to be for us and not against us(13:03) Proclamation: God wills to be our God(13:15)
Doesn't this mean universalism?(14:24) It doesn't mean all will be saved(14:41) Karl Barth isn't Universalist.(15:10)
God cannot be objectified (15:24) God's free , theologians should honour the freedom of God(16:30)
No theological right to set limits set to the lovingkindness of God(17:03)
Barth answers! No more apprehension or fears(18:30)
Just read Bonhoeffer’s Temptation and see that Barth and he are intertwined here. Had to be God throwing all this together! Thanks to all!
Very clear explanation- thank you. I have just ordered your book on Barth 👍
Thanks, Jamie!
This was great bro!! 🔥🔥💯💯
Thanks, Torrin!
It seems like Carl Bart and those like him are trying to stay in the lanes of traditional conservative Christian dogma but finding a light at the end of the tunnel out of the complex maze of soteriological ideology that has been amassing since Augustine.
All this complexity to arrive at what the birds and the flowers already know: God loves us and gives us all that we need. All self created suffering is simply a failure to rest in that simple fact.
This is what I've found, at least.
Thank you for your video and explanation. Ashley Govender. Durban South Africa.
I haven't read Barth, but I find the idea of double predestination with Christ as the elected and rejected very interesting. Election is such a big and uncertain question, but I love how strongly Christological Barth's outlook is. It's quite beautiful. I'd be interested in more from him or on universalism or heaven/hell more broadly.
I've been loving your videos and your blog posts. Keep going!
Thanks for watching! I’m glad you’ve been enjoying my videos. Barth’s view is quite beautiful. I am hoping to do a longer series on universalism, but I have a long list at the moment. :)
This is a wonderful video just learning about Barth need to get your book too just read Douglas Campbell and Jon DePue new book closely related subject thx Stephen🙏
Our reading group is just starting CD vol 2 pt 2, and I would echo the first commentary's comment. I hope to buy your T.F. Torrance book soon. Our reading group's Barth guru, Dr. Marty Folsom, leads a Torrance zoom discussion group.
Thanks for your comment! I know Marty, and I was interviewed by the TFT zoom group at one point, too. Happy reading!
Such a valuable channel this is. Just like if it was taylored for me. I'm not a professional theologian, but I'm deeply interested in 20th century tehologians and quality but accessible content about them are quite rare. Can I anticipate a Paul Tillich in plain English-book?
I’m glad to hear my videos have been helpful! Thanks for watching. And yes, I am planning on a Tillich study sometime next year.
Hi Stephen would love for you to give a review on Keith Ward ‘s new book Karl Barth on Religion A Critique .I think he’s off on Barths view on Election hope you will do a video on it . 😃
Thanks for the suggestion! I hadn’t heard of Keith Ward’s book before. I’ll keep it in mind!
So often any doctrine or interpretation that suggests greater love or more people saved is seen as a big problem or "universalism". As if that would be some kind of horrible thing or a betrayal. I imagine people are just trying to be honest with what they perceive to be the hard teachings of Jesus and other passages of scripture, or their concept of God's holiness. My experience with sharing the idea of christian universalism or at least hoping that god will save all is often times met with a knee jerk offendedness or anger. But the more I learn, it seems like the doctrines of salvation/election/afterlife are not as concrete as we would like them to be.
Thanks for the comment, Zech! I do think you are correct and have had a similar experience with universalism.
@@StephenDMorrison Its even more unacceptable to the reformed calvinists. Their religious identity is centered around the doctrine of election and their faith is expressed by an intense pietism, religious zeal and a deep humility that God has chosen them over others. I think this particular view of election is hard to disavow because in their eyes, doing so would be an act of pride; to diminish God's glory displayed in his sovereign choice to elect and punish. Barth's take is very refreshing tho. Are his interpretations of election a result of him seeking out the biblical authors original intent? Or is he just trying to make philosophical sense of doctrinal concepts? It seems like theologians maybe do a bit of both? Im curious if the early church would read pauls letters and come to the same conclusions that Barth did.
@@zachr0 Yes, you may be right about that. And as far as Barth goes, it is from being faithful to Scripture and also reflecting theologically. There is no such thing as a "plain reading" of the Bible, and so sustained and critical reflection is necessary. For Barth, that means reflecting on the revelation of God, Jesus Christ. He outlines a Christological method for theological work in his Church Dogmatics.
@@StephenDMorrison I would love to hear your thoughts on David Bentley Harts take on hell/atonement/universalism. Maybe in a future video?
@@zachr0 I like Hart. I haven't read too much from him, but I did read the universalism book and his NT translation. I think he is right about a lot of things in both books. To be upfront, even though Barth is not a universalist, it's probably fair to say that I am one. Though of course, it is a matter of definition. But I agree with Moltmann on this issue. Ultimately, universalism is a question God can and will answer. But for me, it is the most consistent interpretation of Scripture. And I think Hart's book does a good job at showing that.
I think that Barth’s Christological understanding/assertion of Election helps clear up Augustine/Calvin’s confusion on the issue. If God’s election is wrapped up in the One that humanity itself is wrapped up and contained in then, logically I think, ipso facto humanity as a whole is in His election. (Hope that makes sense)
Definitely makes sense! And I agree it is an insight that brings clarity where other doctrines have led to only confusion. Thanks for watching!
I'm so glad you know what you are talking about, because I don't !
So who goes to hell according to Barth ? no one ? so bad people can be saved too ?
There's a lot of debate on whether Barth was a universalist or not. For Barth, it is a mystery that we cannot know if anyone will be excluded from salvation. But he stresses that the job of a theologian is not to exclude any but to witness to the fact that God's grace is exceedingly greater than we can think or imagine. So Barth has been called a "hopeful" universalist.
For those who uphold "the way", of course there is no other God behind Jesus to fear; John 10:29-30. Not but; but and, Matthew 7:21 & 2Corinthians 13:5. Some theologians are truly gifts from above, "BUT" God's bible and authorship must be a professing believers primary council, and it's full revelation. We should not hinge our understanding of this "abstract doctrine" on any one experts conclusion alone. Only God's bible can hold that position.
Yes, God must "remain free in our theology" but he cannot be "freed from himself" who is love. To say Jesus is reconciler of all yet not all are saved does seem to be a contradiction.
Thank you for the informative video on Karl Barth's view of election. I just have to say this. I think Barth's doctrine is very clever but it ultimately doesn't get away from the fundamental questions the Augustinian doctrine answers very clearly. Firstly, I think Barth was heavily influenced by German philosophy, particularly Kant, in his understanding of natural theology and divine revelation. Barth's understanding that God cannot be an object of our understanding but only of His understanding is very Kantian in his noumenal/phenomenal distinction and also very Aristotelian with Aristotle's doctrine of pleasure in the Nicomachean Ethics. Yet Barth holds that the doctrine of election does not apply to individual persons but to all of humanity through Christ, who was elected by God. Thus through Christ's election is humanity elected as well. With this understanding, I find Barth potentially contradictory and too obscure in his theology and I don't find it a great contribution to the doctrine of election.
Barth holds that God does not reveal himself in nature but in revelation from God to the individual. With that understanding, with Barth's doctrine of election, it would either lead inescapably towards universalism with Origen of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa in "Apokatastasis" or that the doctrine of election applies to individuals-- a la Augustine-- since only God can reveal this revelation to human beings or God refrains from revealing it to individuals altogether until He finds it appropriate. In either direction, Barth's theology presents more questions than answers and it doesn't help that Barth is too abstract and obscure in his language. This was just my understanding of Barth. Please let me know if I went wrong. Take care and God bless you!
Calvin did not think election was a horrible decree. How can it be horrible the punishment of the wicked ? Vengeance is mine says the Lord, that is a beautiful doctrine that encourages us to love our enemies and know that God will destroy them. I love Romans 12:20 that tells us that by feeding our enemies we heap burning coals on their heads for their destruction by almighty God. There is no comfort in a God that loves all, specially my enemies. But whether there is comfort or not, it does not matter, it is simply not the God of the Bible that will unleash his wrath on the ungodly on the day of judgment.
I think you’re confusing God with the devil. What a monster your concept of God is, and very sad if you truly believe that.
And for the record Calvin did call it a horrible or dreadful decree in the Institutes III.xxiii.7.
I think you misunderstood what Calvin taught. Basically, he believes God creates a person destined to be evil, not worthy or able to seek salvation. Of God does this, then what does that say about free will.