This was great to listen to!

Thank you for the upload!

This really clarified for me  how Barth and Torrance understand the reconciling work of Christ and the inclusion of all humanity in that work.

It also helped me to see better the role of faith as one who is already reconciled.

I'm hungry for more! Keep it coming!

Great teaching!! 🔥🔥

The hyperbole of contrast used to describe "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" is also used in Romans 3 where Paul says  "there are none righteous" and "all have sinned".

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.

This article is deep. Every time I watch it is like I am watching it for the first time!!!

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.

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?

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.

Sin?

No, calvinism teaches that the transition from wrath to glory is a real transition in time.

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.

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.

The remnant of Israel is the only "True Elect."  Gentiles have been "Grafted" into Israel in order to bring of Israel (Jacob) to jealousy. Until the fullness of the gentiles is brought in. (Rapture)
Salvation through Jesus Christ completed work is intended to save "whosoever will."
Rightly divide the word of God. The Love of God compels us to help make Disciples.
Study the book of John for yourself and become born again.
Repent and believe God and receive the promise of the Holy Spirit.

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.

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 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.

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

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."