I've listened to this twice now and I believe I'm beginning to get it. It is a real shakeup to evangelical evangelism. It truly resonates with me and I'm beginning to see how often our evangelical approach has twisted to gospel out of all shape of what it is meant to be. We must start with God's unequivocal YES to every human being. I have already felt a big check about Ray Comfort's methods. I appreciate that he does it out of live but although it can appear to work with some, it is based upon a faulty premise I.e. God's initial NO to humanity.
Barth’s exegesis isn’t entirely convincing tbh. I’d look into Douglas Campbell, a NT scholar, for Paul. Either his books or this article: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1463-1652.00017
Douglas Campbell's book The Deliverance of God does go into this deeply. His basic premise is that Paul's Christology would never allow him to make a statement that God is "clearly" seen through creation. As we know, the only clear image is the self revelation of God in Christ Jesus Himself. Then he lays out the argument in scripture, but I won't attempt to present another's work. It was compelling enough to convince me wholly, but it was an orthodox Christology that made the whole thing easier to chew on.
Just got a card from my Baptist friends. The card states that God loves you. Then implies everyone is a sinner. Sin has a price. Jesus died because of price. Ask Jes😮us to be your savior. Where does this lie in Barth's understanding of Gospel? Sorry about emoji. Couldn't figure how to get it off.
Interesting, to be honest I've often had monocovenantalist temptations like Barth. What keeps me bi-covenantalist is that original sin is hard to explain without the covenant of works
The law as a covenant of works is arguably a misreading of the Hebrew Bible, and in that sense, Barth is closer to some of the ways Jewish interpreters understand the law as promise and gift. Gerhard von Rad argued for that interpretation while living and teaching in Nazi Germany against the antisemitic tendencies of Protestant interpretations of the law and the disregard of the OT. So, I just don't think a two-covenant idea fits with the text itself and is more of a framework applied to the OT from Protestant dogmatics. That said, I think original sin can still be understood as a fall from essential nature, that is, ontologically, not purely legalistically.
@@StephenDMorrison Now there is controversy in Reformed orthodoxy about whether the law is identical to the covenant of works. It's the Republication controversy, or "Marrow controversy". I would side with those who say the Law is still part of the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of works is just the overarching context, possibly putting me a bit closer to Barth and Jewish interpretation. I'm starting the Church Dogmatics this week!
I have a video on where to start with Barth: ua-cam.com/video/1fwKJ0rigEQ/v-deo.htmlsi=5pLKTapkiKEjeNvq. The description includes the books I recommend. Probably best to start with "Evangelical Theology" or "Dogmatics in Outline." Happy reading!
How does your concept of law being "promise vs punishment" fit with the model of covenant within which the law came? The concept of covenant (which both logically and historically preceded the 10 commandments) certainly included promise, but it also included clear, articulate, and understood threatenings of punishment for ignoring or transgressing said law. I do not understand how you can make a claim that punishment is not an attribute of Divine Justice in light of this. Help me understand, please.
I would recommend Douglas Campbell and Jon DePue's new book 'Beyond Justification' for a full response to this question, which is too complex for a youtube comment to address. It is a good question, for sure. I would say that most Jewish scholars or scholars of the Hebrew Bible also reject the Christian idea of a "covenant of works" vs one of grace. The law is a gift, and the punishment is not a vengeful act of God against sin, but the consequences of not living up to the standards of flourishing set by the law. That's one way to think about it, anyway. There is a lot more to say about this, but I can recommend DePue and Campbell's book for a primer. But I can also recommend checking the introductions to the Hebrew Bible by Ellen Davis and Jon Levenson, two of the best living scholars I know of for the Hebrew Bible. Barth's argument is theological, but biblical scholars have been demonstrating that his arguments also fit the texts themselves, even while Barth was not a biblical scholar. Hopefully that's a few helpful leads!
@@StephenDMorrison Thanks. I am reading a number of texts right now, but will attempt to look at the references you cite. I should tag on the front end that I reject both the bicameral nature of covenants (works v grace) AND the idea that punishment and/or retribution demands a vengeful moral (or immoral?) character....., so attacking those does not really address my problem here. I do appreciate the emphasis that my rational faculties and logical capabilities are not sufficient to contain the full scope of the "morality" or "justice" of God. I use quotes because I believe these (as all) attributes of God are transcendent and beyond my ken. You are certainly right that UA-cam comments are not the venue to hammer out long and sometimes abstract issues like this. I hope to be careful to avoid. I am glad to have found your channel.
I've found this channel excellent for challenging my presuppositions and making me think. Thank you Stephen for bringing these ideas to our attention
Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad to hear you've benefited from my work.
Incredibly refreshing view of God's love as seen in the gospel as a profound 'yes' - first and foremost to humanity.
Now I'll spend an inordinate amount of time wondering how this changes/ reinforces my sermon on Psalm 19 for tomorrow
Speaking of which / what's mentioned in the video:
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul...
Love this. So good!
I've listened to this twice now and I believe I'm beginning to get it. It is a real shakeup to evangelical evangelism. It truly resonates with me and I'm beginning to see how often our evangelical approach has twisted to gospel out of all shape of what it is meant to be. We must start with God's unequivocal YES to every human being. I have already felt a big check about Ray Comfort's methods. I appreciate that he does it out of live but although it can appear to work with some, it is based upon a faulty premise I.e. God's initial NO to humanity.
Would have been good to get into the scripture behind this.
How does this critique of "natural theology" interact with Rom 1:20-21?
Barth’s exegesis isn’t entirely convincing tbh. I’d look into Douglas Campbell, a NT scholar, for Paul. Either his books or this article: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1463-1652.00017
Douglas Campbell's book The Deliverance of God does go into this deeply. His basic premise is that Paul's Christology would never allow him to make a statement that God is "clearly" seen through creation. As we know, the only clear image is the self revelation of God in Christ Jesus Himself.
Then he lays out the argument in scripture, but I won't attempt to present another's work. It was compelling enough to convince me wholly, but it was an orthodox Christology that made the whole thing easier to chew on.
Just got a card from my Baptist friends. The card states that God loves you. Then implies everyone is a sinner. Sin has a price. Jesus died because of price. Ask Jes😮us to be your savior. Where does this lie in Barth's understanding of Gospel? Sorry about emoji. Couldn't figure how to get it off.
Interesting, to be honest I've often had monocovenantalist temptations like Barth. What keeps me bi-covenantalist is that original sin is hard to explain without the covenant of works
The law as a covenant of works is arguably a misreading of the Hebrew Bible, and in that sense, Barth is closer to some of the ways Jewish interpreters understand the law as promise and gift. Gerhard von Rad argued for that interpretation while living and teaching in Nazi Germany against the antisemitic tendencies of Protestant interpretations of the law and the disregard of the OT. So, I just don't think a two-covenant idea fits with the text itself and is more of a framework applied to the OT from Protestant dogmatics. That said, I think original sin can still be understood as a fall from essential nature, that is, ontologically, not purely legalistically.
@@StephenDMorrison Now there is controversy in Reformed orthodoxy about whether the law is identical to the covenant of works. It's the Republication controversy, or "Marrow controversy". I would side with those who say the Law is still part of the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of works is just the overarching context, possibly putting me a bit closer to Barth and Jewish interpretation.
I'm starting the Church Dogmatics this week!
Interesting. And great! Happy reading! Which volume will you start with?
@@StephenDMorrison the first I think
@redeemedzoomer6053 1/1, probably? II/1-2 and IV/1 are my favorites.
Thanks for this. I haven't read any Barth. What should I start with?
I have a video on where to start with Barth: ua-cam.com/video/1fwKJ0rigEQ/v-deo.htmlsi=5pLKTapkiKEjeNvq. The description includes the books I recommend. Probably best to start with "Evangelical Theology" or "Dogmatics in Outline." Happy reading!
Wonderful…
God’s Yes. A big cryptic. Needs to be fleshed out. What does this sound like in a conversation with a non believer? M
How does your concept of law being "promise vs punishment" fit with the model of covenant within which the law came? The concept of covenant (which both logically and historically preceded the 10 commandments) certainly included promise, but it also included clear, articulate, and understood threatenings of punishment for ignoring or transgressing said law. I do not understand how you can make a claim that punishment is not an attribute of Divine Justice in light of this. Help me understand, please.
I would recommend Douglas Campbell and Jon DePue's new book 'Beyond Justification' for a full response to this question, which is too complex for a youtube comment to address. It is a good question, for sure. I would say that most Jewish scholars or scholars of the Hebrew Bible also reject the Christian idea of a "covenant of works" vs one of grace. The law is a gift, and the punishment is not a vengeful act of God against sin, but the consequences of not living up to the standards of flourishing set by the law. That's one way to think about it, anyway. There is a lot more to say about this, but I can recommend DePue and Campbell's book for a primer. But I can also recommend checking the introductions to the Hebrew Bible by Ellen Davis and Jon Levenson, two of the best living scholars I know of for the Hebrew Bible. Barth's argument is theological, but biblical scholars have been demonstrating that his arguments also fit the texts themselves, even while Barth was not a biblical scholar. Hopefully that's a few helpful leads!
@@StephenDMorrison Thanks. I am reading a number of texts right now, but will attempt to look at the references you cite. I should tag on the front end that I reject both the bicameral nature of covenants (works v grace) AND the idea that punishment and/or retribution demands a vengeful moral (or immoral?) character....., so attacking those does not really address my problem here. I do appreciate the emphasis that my rational faculties and logical capabilities are not sufficient to contain the full scope of the "morality" or "justice" of God. I use quotes because I believe these (as all) attributes of God are transcendent and beyond my ken. You are certainly right that UA-cam comments are not the venue to hammer out long and sometimes abstract issues like this. I hope to be careful to avoid. I am glad to have found your channel.