Your kitten with the bow profile pic.Agree ... @Gentle-Warrior made no mention that I can see about Karl Barth?
Is unconditional election biblical?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
When speaking of a young girl virginity is implied. Do you know of the LXX in respect to Is 7:14? Alma is translated into the folowing Greek word,
From Thayer
G3933
παρθένος
parthenos
Thayer Definition:
1) a virgin
1a) a marriageable maiden
1b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
1c) one’s marriageable daughter
2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
2a) one who has never had intercourse with women
Here is the same Greek word again in the NewTestament.
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
(Mat 1:23 KJV)
And here:
And in the sixth month was the messenger Gabriel sent by God, to a city of Galilee, the name of which is Nazareth, to a virgin, betrothed to a man, whose name is Joseph, of the house of David, and the name of the virgin is Mary. And the messenger having come in unto her, said, 'Hail, favoured one, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women;' and she, having seen, was troubled at his word, and was reasoning of what kind this salutation may be.
(Luk 1:26-29 YLT)
Then Mary herself testifies through Luke through the Spirit...
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
I never heard of Karl Barth. Who is he and what does he teach? As to one of your points, when did I ever suggest that God's love is not holy?
Can you define God's love from God's perspective? I guarantee you it has nothing to do with a sloppy, carnal and sort of romantic love that we are so used to practice.
Attachments
Barth was the father of what is known as Neo-Orthodoxy. This liberalism denied the divine inspiration of the Bible, and claimed that the Bible is only a human document and a *medium* of divine revelation. Neo-Orthodoxy also promoted the social gospel
And yet "alma" means, young girl. I'm aware of the Greek for virgin. However, if you take note in the post by the other member to my attention, they were not referring to that . Thank you for your information here. It will add to this thread.
This will assist you I think.
Who was Karl Barth?
Answer: Karl Barth was a theologian of Swiss descent who lived from 1886 to 1968. He produced a large body of work over the course of his lifetime, most notably his 13-volume treatise on Christian theology entitled Church Dogmatics. Barth strongly opposed Nazism and was a leader in the Confessing Church in pre-war Germany. In that role Barth vigorously worked to prevent the absorption of the Christian church into the German state. There has been much discussion about Barth’s beliefs among Christians who find it difficult to come to a consensus: was he orthodox, heterodox, or some combination of the two? His work is so vast and spans so many decades that it is difficult to form any concise statement concerning the man’s theology. In any case, there is no doubt that Karl Barth was a great intellectual. He is generally understood to be one of the greatest Protestant theologians of modern times.
Karl Barth asserted God’s sovereignty and His “otherness” from man and man’s culture. He emphasized God’s rule and supremacy and His ultimate control over the events and course of human history, taking comfort in that fact. Barth’s theology is remarkably Christo-centric. Barth argued that God’s saving work in Christ supersedes all other doctrines, even to the point of rendering them moot. For example, Barth seems to see both salvation and damnation as focused on the cross. Jesus is the recipient of all God’s wrath and all God’s favor, and we who are in Christ also receive God’s favor. The logical conclusion of this understanding is that no one but Christ is ever a recipient of God’s wrath. For this reason, Barth has sometimes been accused of leaning toward universalism. In fact, Barth himself taught that people should hope for the salvation of all, even those who reject God.
At the same time, Barth believed that universal salvation would limit God’s freedom and that, ultimately, we cannot be dogmatic on this issue. While much of Barth’s theology is sound, this openness to universal salvation is a departure from Scripture. Jesus said that we are to “fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell,” referring to God the Father (Luke 12:5). Jesus also said that everyone who acknowledges Him before men will be acknowledged before the Father, but “whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32–33). No Christian enjoys the idea of unbelievers going to hell, and Barth’s hope for the salvation of those who reject Christ is understandable. However, universalism is clearly refuted by Jesus’ own teaching about hell.
Another important aspect of Karl Barth’s theology is his view on inspiration and illumination. Barth believed that the Bible becomes the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit illuminates it to the heart. That is, the Bible is not the Word of God in itself, and it need not be inerrant in all that it says; its job is to point people to the true Word, Jesus Christ. This teaching, more than any other, has brought stern disagreement from many evangelicals, including Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Many label Barth a neo-orthodox theologian.
Coming to a comprehensive understanding of Karl Barth is difficult, even for those scholars who have tried. Cornelius Van Til, the scholar and critic of Barth who wrote Christianity and Barthianism in an attempt to sort out Barth’s theology, was told by Barth that he had completely misunderstood him. Indeed, it seems that Karl Barth was careful to frame his beliefs in a way that would make it impossible for anyone to pin him down finally upon any doctrine whatsoever.
In Barth’s teachings there is a troubling vagueness or duality. His writings and ideas are fascinating and thought-provoking, and for decades he contributed much to theological discussions. His influence is still being felt in the emergent movement, neo-orthodoxy, and neo-evangelicalism today.
Recommended Resource: The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns
I do believe Barth had a point about understanding the Bible itself. As many of us, even those here, have argued at some point or another I'm sure, that the Holy Spirit helps us to understand scripture.
Given man's part in compiling the Bible I think Karl Barth's observation was fair.
I know that you do not want to answer any more of my questions, because you say you don't have time, but if you happen to change your mind, can you answer this one? Is all of the people that lived and died before the Gospel was written going to hell? What about the thief on the cross? What about John the Baptist? These were all born again before they heard the Gospel.
No, they were not born again. They were not made new creatures in Christ. They were not sealed by the Holy Spirit. They were not in Christ. They were not made righteous by the blood of Jesus Christ. If they were, they would have been present with the Lord upon death, but instead were kept safe from wrath in Abraham’s bosom.
They were saved by faith. Abraham was saved by his faith and that was credited as righteousness by God.
Jesus death on the cross redeemed the Old Testament saints also.
Yes, but they were not saved until the cross. They did not have faith in the d,b,r of Jesus.
This will assist you I think.
Who was Karl Barth?
Question: "Who was Karl Barth?"
Answer: Karl Barth was a theologian of Swiss descent who lived from 1886 to 1968. He produced a large body of work over the course of his lifetime, most notably his 13-volume treatise on Christian theology entitled Church Dogmatics. Barth strongly opposed Nazism and was a leader in the Confessing Church in pre-war Germany. In that role Barth vigorously worked to prevent the absorption of the Christian church into the German state. There has been much discussion about Barth’s beliefs among Christians who find it difficult to come to a consensus: was he orthodox, heterodox, or some combination of the two? His work is so vast and spans so many decades that it is difficult to form any concise statement concerning the man’s theology. In any case, there is no doubt that Karl Barth was a great intellectual. He is generally understood to be one of the greatest Protestant theologians of modern times.
Karl Barth asserted God’s sovereignty and His “otherness” from man and man’s culture. He emphasized God’s rule and supremacy and His ultimate control over the events and course of human history, taking comfort in that fact. Barth’s theology is remarkably Christo-centric. Barth argued that God’s saving work in Christ supersedes all other doctrines, even to the point of rendering them moot. For example, Barth seems to see both salvation and damnation as focused on the cross. Jesus is the recipient of all God’s wrath and all God’s favor, and we who are in Christ also receive God’s favor. The logical conclusion of this understanding is that no one but Christ is ever a recipient of God’s wrath. For this reason, Barth has sometimes been accused of leaning toward universalism. In fact, Barth himself taught that people should hope for the salvation of all, even those who reject God.
At the same time, Barth believed that universal salvation would limit God’s freedom and that, ultimately, we cannot be dogmatic on this issue. While much of Barth’s theology is sound, this openness to universal salvation is a departure from Scripture. Jesus said that we are to “fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell,” referring to God the Father (Luke 12:5). Jesus also said that everyone who acknowledges Him before men will be acknowledged before the Father, but “whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32–33). No Christian enjoys the idea of unbelievers going to hell, and Barth’s hope for the salvation of those who reject Christ is understandable. However, universalism is clearly refuted by Jesus’ own teaching about hell.
Another important aspect of Karl Barth’s theology is his view on inspiration and illumination. Barth believed that the Bible becomes the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit illuminates it to the heart. That is, the Bible is not the Word of God in itself, and it need not be inerrant in all that it says; its job is to point people to the true Word, Jesus Christ. This teaching, more than any other, has brought stern disagreement from many evangelicals, including Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Many label Barth a neo-orthodox theologian.
Coming to a comprehensive understanding of Karl Barth is difficult, even for those scholars who have tried. Cornelius Van Til, the scholar and critic of Barth who wrote Christianity and Barthianism in an attempt to sort out Barth’s theology, was told by Barth that he had completely misunderstood him. Indeed, it seems that Karl Barth was careful to frame his beliefs in a way that would make it impossible for anyone to pin him down finally upon any doctrine whatsoever.
In Barth’s teachings there is a troubling vagueness or duality. His writings and ideas are fascinating and thought-provoking, and for decades he contributed much to theological discussions. His influence is still being felt in the emergent movement, neo-orthodoxy, and neo-evangelicalism today.
Recommended Resource: The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns
I do believe Barth had a point about understanding the Bible itself. As many of us, even those here, have argued at some point or another I'm sure, that the Holy Spirit helps us to understand scripture.
Given man's part in compiling the Bible I think Karl Barth's observation was fair.
Thank you for the information. One thing that this individual says is that Jesus was the subject of God's wrath which is an incomprehensible statement that makes God come against God and thus divide the Godhead that holds an unbreakable union.
God cannot be against God becase it would rupture the eternal unity of the Godhead and would make Him weaker than the devil who cannot be against his own kingdom, otherwise, it would not last (Mark 3:23-26).
Therefore, God did not pour out His wrath on His own Son on the cross. Nowhere do I read that in the entire bible, including Isa. 5e:10. What I read is that MEN poured out their wrath on the Lord and He received it and accepted, just as the Father and the Spirit let it be because it was the given hour of darkness.
Attachments
I agree. Karl Barth's idea of wrath of God being poured onto Jesus while He was on the cross is an abridgment of the Book of Romans chapter 5 and verse 9. Much more then, being now justified [i]by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.
There is no verse that directly states that God poured His wrath upon Jesus on the cross.
There were 3 hours on the cross (from 6 to 9) when there was darkness over the whole land until the 9th hour. Mark 15: 34 And at the 9th hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? That 3 hours is when Jesus, as man, took upon himself, (the wrath of God by forsaking him) the sins of those that God had given him, because God cannot be in the presence of sin.
Interesting, you already quoted Isa 53:10 "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him". What do you think that verse is saying?
@Whispered's meme is not an actual quotation.
here's what Calvin actually said:
(Institutes, book 4, chapter 20, section 25)
But if we look to God’s Word, it will lead us farther. We are not only subject to the authority of princes who perform their office toward us uprightly and faithfully as they ought, but also to the authority of all who, by whatever means, have got control of affairs, even though they perform not a whit of the princes’ office. For despite the Lord’s testimony that the magistrate’s office is the highest gift of his beneficence to preserve the safety of men, and despite his appointment of bounds to the magistrates he still declares at the same time that whoever they may be, they have their authority solely from him. Indeed, he says that those who rule for the public benefit are true patterns and evidences of this beneficence of his; that they who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by him to punish the wickedness of the people; that all equally have been endowed with that holy majesty with which he has invested lawful power. I shall proceed no farther until I have added some sure testimonies of this thing. Yet, we need not labor to prove that a wicked king is the Lord’s wrath upon the earth [Job 34:30, Vg.; Hos. 13:11; Isa. 3:4; 10:5; Deut. 28:29], for I believe no man will contradict me; and thus nothing more would be said of a king than of a robber who seizes your possessions, of an adulterer who pollutes your marriage bed, or of a murderer who seeks to kill you. For Scripture reckons all such calamities among God’s curses. But let us, rather, pause here to prove this, which does not so easily settle in men’s minds. In a very wicked man utterly unworthy of all honor, provided he has the public power in his hands, that noble and divine power resides which the Lord has by his Word given to the ministers of his justice and judgment. Accordingly, he should be held in the same reverence and esteem by his subjects, in so far as public obedience is concerned, in which they would hold the best of kings if he were given to them.
it may make a little more sense with context -- plus Calvin gave scripture references to support his statement. yeah probably this is too much information to put in a meme, eh
people who get doctrine from memes don't have time to read 5 scriptures lol
It all depends on whether we understand Hebrew thinking or not. Hebrew culture had the tendency to understand God as if He was the author and the finisher of every event that took place in their lives while ignoring the details that brought such events to its climax. In this case (Isa. 53:10), it was not God who put Jesus to grief but men. It was not God who crushed Him but men, yet Hebrew culture had a way of removing the details that led to its final end (in this case, men are omitted), and made it look like if God Himself was doing it. They believed in God's sovereignty.
Also, it is necessary to add that Hebrew people thought and spoke in pictures as opposed to Greek thinking that thinks in concepts. This is one of the reasons why the NT was not written in Hebrew but in Greek. The Greek or the western thinking is more exact when we describe events. The Hebrews always put God in the middle of events to relate that God was always involved in the lives of His people.
As an example, if something bad took place to the Hebrews, they went to Him wailing as to why He had done it. The psalms are filled with this idea.
We will also find this kind of thinking in the scriptures and read verses like, "God slew "someone" (KJV Gen 38:8, 10) while skipping the details as to how this particular man died. The man may have died a sickness prematurely where God was not causing this to happen. The same thing is applied to catastrophic events when the Hebrews used excessive exaggerations to make a point As an example, Joel prophesies about the last days' events which came to pass after Jesus ascended to the throne, but the things Joel said, didn't come to pass literally speaking. See Joel 2:29-31.
In the NT, Peter quoted Joel in Acts 2:17 and said in V:16, "This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel." He goes on to indicate that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled right then and there, yet we do not see the sun turning into darkness or the moon turning into blood. Why? Because he was using Hebrew metaphors to make a point that the day of the Lord had come with great pomposity. It is interesting that no one asked why the sun was not turning into the darkness and why it wasn't the moon bleeding (an indication that the old covenant was over).
They understood that a climatic event had taken place that pointed to the forgiveness of sins which opened the door to a new era where righteousness would reign in the hearts of those who believed what the Lord had done for them (new covenant).
Finally, it is imperative to understand that God did not delight in the sufferings of His Son nor was He aloof from Him when Jesus was hanging on a tree. The Father was present to Him when men poured out their wrath on Jesus, but God did nothing to prevent it, neither did Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. God just let them according to His predetermined plan (Acts 2:23).
The "pleasing" or the "delight" was what was being accomplished, not what was taking place on the cross.
Well, that's my take anyway.
