Karl Barth and Election
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2012, 08:42 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2012 08:50 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Karl Barth and Election
(28-07-2012 02:56 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(28-07-2012 02:36 PM)Jeff Wrote:  Typical theist twaddle. If he argues that God is beyond human comprehension then he should conclude that God's words are beyond comprehension, ie the Bible is beyond comprehension.

But this is the orthodox position. The words of God ARE beyond comprehension, which is why you must have the Holy Spirit to understand it. The old Fundie reply to the atheist who says the Bible doesn't make sense is, "That's because the Bible is God's love letter to his people. Of course you can't understand it. That's what you get for reading other people's mail!"

But even if you don't have the capacity to understand it by virtue of having the stomach to ingest the Holy Spirit without regurgitating it later, you are still elect by virtue of the Christ's representation. Is that read accurate?

Tried to introduce Barth to my mom today. She's still praying for my worthless ass some 30 years after I told her a promise of a postmortem preservation of identity is total and complete untenable bullshit. God bless her.

GM: There's this dude called Karl Barth who some Pope described as the most important theologian since Aquinas who seems to propose that when the Christ died for humanity's sins, he did much more than that, he ensured all of humanity's election into heaven.

Mom: Yes, all you have to do is believe that Jesus died for your sins.

GM: I don't think that's what he's saying mom, think he's saying the Christ's crucifixion was a sufficient condition for all of us going to heaven, regardless of what we accept, believe, or do. We're all going to heaven whether we like it or not.

Mom: So you're saying there is no hell.

GM: Not me, I think we all create our own heaven and hell right here right now and then inevitably dissolve into nothing at all. But I think what's Barth saying is that humans don't go to hell because of the sacrifice of the Christ.

Hellbound and Fullerene, did you study Barth when you was back there in seminary school? This is the first I've heard of him. But I went atheist at a pretty early age after only a cursory introduction (errrr ... I mean indoctrination) to theology.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2012, 08:50 PM
RE: Karl Barth and Election
(28-07-2012 08:42 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(28-07-2012 02:56 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  But this is the orthodox position. The words of God ARE beyond comprehension, which is why you must have the Holy Spirit to understand it. The old Fundie reply to the atheist who says the Bible doesn't make sense is, "That's because the Bible is God's love letter to his people. Of course you can't understand it. That's what you get for reading other people's mail!"

But even if you don't have the capacity to understand it by virtue of having the stomach to ingest the Holy Spirit without regurgitating it later, you are still elect by virtue of the Christ's representation. Is that read accurate?

Tried to introduce Barth to my mom today. She's still praying for my worthless ass some 30 years after I told her a promise of a postmortem preservation of identity is total and complete untenable bullshit. God bless her.

GM: There's this dude called Karl Barth who some Pope described as the most important theologian since Aquinas who seems to propose that when the Christ died for humanity's sins, he did much more than that, he ensured all of humanity's election into heaven.

Mom: Yes, all you have to do is believe that Jesus died for your sins.

GM: I don't think that's what he's saying mom, think he's saying the Christ's crucifixion was a sufficient condition for all of us going to heaven, regardless of what we accept, believe, or do.

Mom: So you're saying there is no hell.

GM: Not me, I think we all create our own heaven and hell right here right now and then we dissolve into the abyss. But I think what's Barth saying is that humans don't go to hell because of the sacrifice of the Christ.

Hellbound and Fullerene, did you study Barth when you was back there in seminary school? This is the first I've heard of him. But I went atheist at a pretty early age after only a cursory introduction (errrr ... I mean indoctrination) to theology.

I knew who he was and some of the bullet points of his 14(?) volumes of Church Dogmatics. As a conservative evangelical, I dismissed him early on because of universalist views and belief that there was no literal hell.
In hindsight, his "liberal theology" might have kept me in the church a bit longer...or out of it sooner!

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
28-07-2012, 08:52 PM
RE: Karl Barth and Election
(28-07-2012 08:50 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(28-07-2012 08:42 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  But even if you don't have the capacity to understand it by virtue of having the stomach to ingest the Holy Spirit without regurgitating it later, you are still elect by virtue of the Christ's representation. Is that read accurate?

Tried to introduce Barth to my mom today. She's still praying for my worthless ass some 30 years after I told her a promise of a postmortem preservation of identity is total and complete untenable bullshit. God bless her.

GM: There's this dude called Karl Barth who some Pope described as the most important theologian since Aquinas who seems to propose that when the Christ died for humanity's sins, he did much more than that, he ensured all of humanity's election into heaven.

Mom: Yes, all you have to do is believe that Jesus died for your sins.

GM: I don't think that's what he's saying mom, think he's saying the Christ's crucifixion was a sufficient condition for all of us going to heaven, regardless of what we accept, believe, or do.

Mom: So you're saying there is no hell.

GM: Not me, I think we all create our own heaven and hell right here right now and then we dissolve into the abyss. But I think what's Barth saying is that humans don't go to hell because of the sacrifice of the Christ.

Hellbound and Fullerene, did you study Barth when you was back there in seminary school? This is the first I've heard of him. But I went atheist at a pretty early age after only a cursory introduction (errrr ... I mean indoctrination) to theology.

I knew who he was and some of the bullet points of his 14(?) volumes of Church Dogmatics. As a conservative evangelical, I dismissed him early on because of universalist views and belief that there was no literal hell.
In hindsight, his "liberal theology" might have kept me in the church a bit longer...or out of it sooner!

OK, but what is his position on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-07-2012, 12:42 AM
RE: Karl Barth and Election
(28-07-2012 08:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-07-2012 08:50 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I knew who he was and some of the bullet points of his 14(?) volumes of Church Dogmatics. As a conservative evangelical, I dismissed him early on because of universalist views and belief that there was no literal hell.
In hindsight, his "liberal theology" might have kept me in the church a bit longer...or out of it sooner!

OK, but what is his position on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?Consider

Don't think my mom's even heard of that particular derision. Don't think I feel the need to deride her belief with it.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-07-2012, 05:48 AM
RE: Karl Barth and Election
(29-07-2012 12:42 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(28-07-2012 08:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, but what is his position on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?Consider

Don't think my mom's even heard of that particular derision. Don't think I feel the need to deride her belief with it.

I'd have to look it up, but it was said to actually have been a debate amongst Medieval theologians.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2012, 08:07 AM
RE: Karl Barth and Election
(26-07-2012 07:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So I started to read Barth's The Epistle to the Romans and studying his theology (dunno why, read an interview with John Updike before his death which piqued my curiosity is all I can think). His basic premise seems to be that God is beyond human comprehension and thus beyond rational discussion or argumentation. He doesn't even bother with trivialities like Biblical accuracy. It's just a distraction. God is essentially ineffable and "Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it." ('Course he then proceeded to spend over 6 million words trying to express it in the 13-volume Church Dogmatics. Wink )

But his concept of election is what seems most curious to me. My read is that he seems to be saying that Jesus did much more than die for humanity's sin, he also represented God's election of all humanity (in KingsChosen's sense). I think what he is saying is that not only is KingsChosen elect, but so are the rest of us. No further action or belief required.

Am I full of shit and naive with this read?

This is a question of atonement.

Unlimited atonement - the sacrifice was for all
Limited atonement - sacrifice was for only the elect
Unlimited limited atonement - sacrifice was sufficient for all, but only for the elect

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: