Great discussion, I think it helps knowing what the word recieve means in talking about our salvation and reconciliation to the Father, it is the word Lambano: "to lay hold of" that which is already ours. Another vs that affirms this would be Paul saying that "you have been reconciled to God, now come to terms with it", i.e realize it, lay hold of it and get on with living the life of the kingdom as one endowed with All of the Godhead bodily.
An absolutely wonderful episode! He does, however, overgeneralize when he uses the term “universalism “. What he is describing is more related to Unitarians or Unitarian Universalist. This is very different from the Christian believes that through Christ, all will be saved. Nonetheless, absolutely wonderful. Many will be blessed for years to come through this archive of insight into the whole of Christianity. God bless you all.
This is a great point of view of the atonement. It is fresh air that Reformed theology really needs. The atonement was never an issue, until Theodore Beza stated that Christ die not die for all, which contradicts not only what the vast majority of the early Reformers taught but even what Calvin himself taught. Let's face it I never heard a dispute between followers of Calvin and followers of Luther until Theodore Beza. The Heidelberg Catechism does not teach limited atonement (though it teaches double predestination) anywhere, and clearly Arminius himself stated he had no major issues with the Heidelberg Catechism. It is the Dort / Westminster Confession that introduced 5-point calvinism, something Calvin never taught (in particular the L of TULIP was never affirmed by Calvin). I am glad to see a Reformed position that teaches unlimited atonement. With that being said, I have some concerns with Barth position that the whole world was reconciled to God, because reconciliation requires both parties to be reconciled. That God in his Son effected the reconciliation of the entire world is in my view a misrepresentation of 2 Corinthians 5:18 which clearly refers to believers in Christ. If we read the prior verse 2 Corinthians 5:17 it is clear that Paul talks about those being in Christ (believers) as new creations that were reconciled in 2 Corinthians 5:18. The letter to the Corinthians is clearly addressed to the Church in Corinth, i.e. to believers. To imply all the unbaptized and unrepentant have been reconciled to God by Christ is going beyond what Scripture teaches. The reconciliation referred to in 2 Corinthians 5:18 clearly presupposes faith. Scripture interprets scripture, all we have to do is look at a similar verse and see what Paul says, and the closest verse I found is Colossians 1 verses 21 to 23, where Paul tells them that they were reconciled by Christ's blood "if you continue in the faith grounded and settled" (v.23). It is clear that the reconciliation that God worked at the cross, assumes faith is present, otherwise we remain un-reconciled and enemies of Christ. In Romans 3:25 the King James version summarizes Christ perfectly "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past". As everybody can see Christ death on the cross was a propitiation for sin through faith in his blood, the atoning work of Christ did not propitiate sins without faith, neither did it reconcile anybody without faith. The problem with the entirety of the work of Karl Barth is that he develop a theory of the atonement that reconciled the entire world, as if the entire world were in Christ, when in fact solely those that are in the faith are in a state of reconciliation with God, the rest are under God's wrath. This has been the biblical understanding of Christianity for centuries, until Karl Barth came on the scene. Now I have to be fair and recognize that there is one piece of scripture that is puzzling in Romans 9 verses 9 to 11 where it says before they were even born, Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated and before they have done anything good or bad. Certainly this passage seems difficult to understand since it appears that God loved Jacob before he was converted, while other passages in scripture seem to teach that we are all enemies of God until we are converted. Again this passage can only be interpreted that the love for Jacob is based on foreseen faith, i.e. that God will call and convert Jacob who was predestined by God for salvation. Regardless, Barth failed to understand that the atonement of Christ, reconciliation, the love of God, all three presuppose faith, God does not love anybody outside of union with Christ or future union with Christ (if the sinner has not been converted yet). Romans 3:25 is decisive that the propitiation for sin is through faith in his blood, and not based solely on Christ's work on the cross which leads Barth to erroneously conclude that God is reconciled to the entirety of the sinner's population regardless whether they come to faith or not. This in my view is a faulty understanding of the scriptures.
I'm Reformed, and I must say, I don't really see how Barthianism provides any real alternative to the Calvinist or Arminian positions on human agency. At the end of the day, does salvation come from divine election or our own decision? I can't discern an answer to this in Barth, but perhaps this muddiness is intentional on his part. In Barth's view, all humanity is reconciled to God through Christ, just as in Adam all sinned I presume, but ultimately some will be cast into Hell, so how can we truly say they were reconciled to God? This is still limited atonement, in the sense that although Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to save every individual, it will not effectively be applied to every individual. In short, I think Barthianism is interesting, and I applaud it for trying to create a space to reconcile the theologies of Reformed and Arminian brothers in Christ. I just question if it actually accomplishes anything, or if it just creates a gray area where sharp distinctions (the Dordtian and Remonstrant "points") are simply dulled?
Hi. Thanks for your thoughts. One thing I might add for further thought... I've done quite a bit of study in this area so I'm not really asking these question to get an answer rather provoke further inquiry. 1. What is the "hell" you are referring to? 2. What is the purpose and context of this "hell" and does it align with the correct interpretation and translation of the original text. Are those conclusions consistent with Gods character revealed in Christ? 3. Have we given God due respect in His plan for the ages to reconcile all things to Himself? 4. Have we understood or at least grasped that this age and the age to come are not all there is? 5. Have we considered that the finished work of Christ has included all people in and of itself, and the elect have been chosen for a purpose that brings the fulfillment of this inclusion unto the end of the ages? (Sorry if that's hard to understand I write that quickly). 6. Have we understood that the plan for God to save all people (in actuality) will be worked out in His order and timing and may not mesh with our indoctrinated ideas of "this life" and the "afterlife." I'm not a universalist but I do believe in universal reconciliation in Gods order and timing, which really does display the best intentions of both arminianism and calvanism. I think that both arminianism and calvanism are arguing over the same false doctrine of Hell and mispercieved idea of Gods character. Anyway just a thought
Just some food for thought. I think we need to stop trying to compartmentalize all of this stuff. This is how western christianity has gotten so far into the weeds. When we feel like we have to fit God into our boxes, we miss the forrest for the trees. We also have a problem with literalism, and we have made an idol of it, and many evangelicals will attack you when you question that idol. The struggle I have had is to stop trying to compress the God of the cosmos into our systematic understanding, because we will infinitely limit God in every single case. We need to let God himself be the basis of our theology, and not let our theology be the basis for who God is.
@@lukes6967 I too believe in universal reconciliation in Gods order and timing, we haven't been given a lot of concrete information on the "afterlife", it seems likely it might include some remedial hell for at least some, but all will be well in the end. This is what I understand to be a "universalist" position. Of course that's just a label, and maybe not even a useful one. As far as I know George MacDonald never called himself a "universalist".
Forget the isms and just read the books. The Institutes of Religion by Calvin is one of the most stimulating books I have read. Barth likewise has to be read to appreciate him; he has sustained my faith for 40 years. One other must book to read is Dr Albert Schweitzer's "Quest of the HIstorical Jesus". Just read the books.
Interesting discussion but frankly most of the objections against the Calvinist and Arminian theologies don't really stand up. Especially the discussion on whether the believer can know that they are elect. Thanks for uploading though.
I listened the whole way through, but he kinda lost me at the beginning with his singular definition of freedom. As if there is only one sense to the word and that non-Calvinists mean that one sense when they talk of freedom of the will. And he kinda lost me at the end with that individual vs. person thing. Seems like more baggage is being laid on individualism than is necessary. I could go on but perhaps the most glaring issue is his description of Arminianism. I’m sure any Arminian listening would be really annoyed that he described their theology without any mention or even an allusion to Prevenient Grace. Even the slightest hint that this central component of their theology exists would have been nice.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding (willingly or not) here, especially concerning calvinism. You said in the beginning that the calvinist believes that when he decides for Christ, his choice changes the reality of who he is. That is absolutely not correct. The calvinist would say that while we are all children of wrath before the point of salvation, and while we are new creations in Christ after that point - the choice itself was not behind this change. We believe that the Holy Spirit applies the work of Christ on the cross in our lives, at the time of salvation - when we first believe and repent. The Holy Spirit is the person who raises us up from spiritual death, to spiritual life, and this was not our doing but His. The Father elects, the Son lays down his life to carry their sins and give them his righteousness, and the Spirit applies this work to their life at the point when they first believe. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." - John 3:7-8
I think you confused something, because he said that about Arminians, not Calvinists. He said for the Arminian who believes in Christ it changes the "truth" about them - and he used the example of a ledger (though I disagree with what he says about Arminians). Rather for the Calvinists he said the work can be attributed to the cross 2,000 years go, so their justification was not applied in their lifetime but long before. There was no mention of a Calvinist "deciding" for Christ. Calvinists think faith is a corollary for having already been justified, and thus a decision is not that important since it is after-the-fact and simply a playing out of what was predetermined. Note though that he kept on emphasizing 5-point Calvinist. A lesser point Calvinist may diverge in different areas, like J. Vernon McGee who believed in Unlimited Atonement and thus was a 4-Point Calvinist.
I can’t imagine anyone in my neighborhood who could sit through 30 minutes of this guy. Not because he’s right or wrong, but because they would have no idea what all the fancy words mean. I understand that this is a discussion between two intellectuals but I hope and pray this isn’t the way he talks to those not familiar with Christianity. Why not just talk simply like Christ? These are just my thoughts. Not trying to rain on anyone’s parade. Talk over everyone’s heads and I think you’ll just find people walking away frustrated that they can’t just get a simple answer to their questions.
It seems to me that the Scriptures indeed teach that the work of God in saving the world in Jesus was complete before the foundation of the world as Rev 13:8 teaches. Humanity was reconciled to God and engrafted / made one flesh with God in Jesus. What also seems true however is that one must experience an appropriation of this finished work where the objectively reconciled humanity is subjectively transformed at an individual level. This is not from our perspective as temporal beings 2000 years ago along with all humanity but in time in the individual where the individual experiences what it is to be personally transformed and indwelt by the holy spirit and united to Christ in such a way so as to bring about the transforming reality of the indwelling Christ. This is not a common experience to all human beings. Being brought into the family of God through Christ our older brother and the bond of the Spirit is not the common experience of all humanity. This diverges from the position presented here which seems to hold that all human beings experience this ontological reality personally prior to their realising of this reality. This I think is the main problem with this position. All other pieces seem to fit beautifully and neatly except this particular element which diminishes personal union as a before and after experience in the individual temporally and ontologically. There will be those who never knew Christ on the last day. There are sheep and there are goats and the sheep have heard the voice of the Shepherd. If it were true that all were made sheep in Christ then this parable would not hold true and neither would there be the experience of walking in darkness and then coming into the light. This teaching is therefore inconsistent with experience although this does not automatically make it wrong. What is problematic i think also is the way language which is being used that seems familiar and biblical at first hearing but is shaped in such a way so as to run contrary to many commonly accepted notions of what the language means. Again this does not mean that the teaching is untrue either. What we have to decide is whether the reshaping of the language of Scripture toward a less familiar narrative actually holds true and is what the biblical writers wished to communicate. I believe there is a way to preserve the vicarious humanity of Jesus without taking away the lived experience of the cross in the individual life and the personal transition from darkness to light through being ontologically united to Jesus in the Spirit and transformed personally to a place of union with Christ which is the appropriation of the unity which he accomplishes on the cross but also as an outworking of the finished work on day 7. This differs i think from what has been presented but would be interested to see if others agree or could help reconcile this apparent problem.
I mostly agree with what you say, I just wrote a separate post stating my opinion. I would go further than you and state that based on Romans 3:25 and Colossians 1 verses 21 to 23 , when scripture talks about reconciliation, propitiation, atonement, it presupposes faith, Christ did not reconcile the entirety of humanity outside of faith and now it is up to humanity to believe it, only those that are in the faith are reconciled or those that God foreknew they would come to faith by the preaching of the gospel were reconciled to God. This is the scriptural teaching, and to tell an unbeliever that God is reconciled to him is a very dangerous proposition, because reconciliation implies faith, and no reconciliation can possibly exist outside of faith. Therefore we should tell an unbeliever that he should believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and he will be reconciled to God by the cross of Christ where all those that are in Christ and all those that will come to Christ in the future have been reconciled to God. We must come to the cross because it is the only place where sinners can be reconciled to God, but to teach that we have been reconciled to God if we are outside the faith is contrary to what is taught in Colossians 1:23, where it clearly states that faith in Christ is a condition for reconciliation, there is no reconciliation apart from faith in Christ, and those that have no faith in Christ should not be taught that God is already reconciled to them whether they believe it or not.
@@billk8874 So what is the individual sinner called upon to believe? Is he to believe in Christ as the potential savior, which faith makes Him the actual savior? Romans 5:10 says that we were reconciled while we were enemies.
@@nightflight83 You bring a very good point, not only Romans 5:10 but also Hebrews 10:10 and Hebrews 10:14 clearly teach that our reconciliation took place before we believe, so the question here is not whether we are to believe in Christ as the potential Savior because Christ is not a potential Savior but a Savior, our salvation did take place at Calvary, it is done, it is finished. The finished work of Christ precedes our faith and is actually the object of faith. But then the question that must be asked is who was reconciled at Calvary ? And the answer is the elect alone were reconciled as Barth correctly teaches. The problem here though is that Barth considers the whole world to be the elect, including those that will perish in hell, and this is a serious error because scripture clearly teaches in many passages a particular election and not a universal election. The only people that were reconciled at Calvary are those that are saved through faith, this reconciliation precedes faith, but the reconciliation comprises solely those that have faith or will come to faith in the future. Hebrews 10:14 teaches "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified". Who are they that are sanctified or set apart ? Only believers. But Barth makes the mistake of saying that it is the entire world of unbelievers that were sanctified in addition to the believers, the fact of the matter is there is no sanctification outside of faith, and those that were sanctified are clearly those that would come to faith in this life. This salvation is freely offered to all men, all men are called to believe that they are the elect, however solely those that receive Christ are truly elect. The gospel is proclaimed to all men but it must be made clear that the good news is solely for those that put their trust in the atoning work of Christ, those that confess Christ died for me. The "for me" is critical, only those that believe in their heart that Christ took their sin at Calvary, those and only those were reconciled at Calvary. Romans 5:10 which you quote refers to sinners, but not all sinners, solely those sinners that repent. Most people do not believe they are sinners, and clearly these people were not reconciled, Matthew 9:12, Luke 5:31, and Mark 2:17 clearly state that Christ did not come to save those that do not need a physician. Christ came to save sinners, but not all men in the world see themselves as sinners, actually the vast majority do not and Christ did not die for those men nor did he reconcile them.
@@nightflight83 And you have to ask yourself this question also. Did Christ die for you ? I am assuming you will say yes. What does it mean ? does it mean that you are going to heaven because of it ? I am sure you will say yes. And you see if Christ died for me means I am going to heaven because of it, this has to necessarily mean that Christ died solely for those that are going to heaven. Calvinism is correct Christ died for and took upon himself solely the sins of the elect, his atonement was effectual and guarantees the salvation of those he died for. The atonement is clearly limited to those that are saved from the wrath of God and will see heaven, and because the bible clearly teaches against universalism (all will go to heaven), then it must be that solely the sins of the elect were atoned for, paid for, and solely the elect were reconciled. Romans 5:10 clearly refers to believers that were reconciled while they were still enemies of Christ, it does not refer at all to those that will not accept Christ and will deny him.
1 cor. 1:10 "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" In light of this passage, how could a person so identify with a mere man, whether it be Calvin or Arminius, or anyone, that they would call themselves by that name? It is blatant disobedience to the word of God and the Spirit of Christ. McSwain equates truth and freedom. This may be clear in his mind but it is not clear to me when he says men are not free to chose or reject God. Too much head knowledge theology has made him confused and confusing. Too much confusion for me. I will only say before leaving at the 9:45 mark, that God's love is toward all and when we exercise faith in him, as he calls us to do, we enter into the full blessing of His love. Jesus wept over those who freely rejected Him. Their rejection was real and the consequences were real. Likewise Christ and the angels of heaven rejoice over the sinner that turns in repentance and faith to Him . That choice is likewise real and the blessed consequences are eternal. God sovereignly created us in His image with the capacity of real choices, having real consequences."I set before you life and death - choose life."
Good points, brother Don. In defense of those who hold to one or another of the two -isms, its often simply a shorthand way of summarizing their salvation theories, and for the most part, we would have to admit that much of what is meant by these traditions can't be attributed to their founders personally. I hold the view, that there isn't one way that God deals with each individual. Some have no choice, or very little. Some have quite a lot of rope granted to them. Others don't even have enough intellect to understand the Gospel. These, like children, are not judged by it. St. Paul's appeal is to be understood as NORMATIVE and binding upon all whom God's binds by it, but the Lord always maintains veto power.
