Can someone explain the first question to me? Is Hunsinger (Barth) saying that the freedom to say no is actually non-freedom because the only freedom any person has is to say Yes to God? And that we are not free to not sin because the Fall and the Resurrection are both predestined to happen, and that freedom is only achieved through acknowledging God through Christ? If so, going to the second question, should an individual be responsible for their sins, if the freedom to not sin is not in them? And furthermore, if there is no freedom for the creature in anything other than in choosing God, is free will required for the creature in any other situation/decision that it makes, or, is there no choice for the creature except in the choice of choosing God?
we are not free not to sin because it's like quicksand - once you get in it you can't get out of it by yourself. The Fall isn't necessary, but continuing to sin after the fall isn't something we can opt out of. I don't hear predestination in his answer at all.
The answer here is that Barth's answer is in fact a very deliberate non-answer. Barth's famous dictum on universalism gives an insight into his thought here: "I don't teach it [universalism] but I don't not teach it". Barth wants to avoid a clear determination that people are going to hell, so he enters into a philosophication of people saying 'no' to God. Put another way, Barth's lack of affirmation of a humans capacity to say 'no' to God arises from his desire to leave the door open to universalism. The philosophical issue of freedom raised by Barth, is in-fact penultimate to the eschatological issue of one's eternal destiny. Barth's doctrine of election, correctly, updates Calvin and centres election in Christ and not humankind, however it doesn't' have a clear moment of choice for humankind built into it, hence the accusation of universalism. If it did have this choice in place, this would flow into Barth's dogma of freedom and update it with a clear 'no' to accompany the present yes. Barth is surely wrong to uphold the idea that freedom is only about yes and not no to God, he is also wrong to outline a dogma of election that leaves the door open to universalism through not forcing humans to make a choice for God. See Billy Graham's biography Just As I Am for a pastoral level rebuke of Barth on this issue, by Emil Brunner. We have to remember that while brilliant, Barth like other great theologians, is not inspired.
The age old question of how can a God of so called love create/permit so much brutal suffering to his so called children! The modern Christian church teaches that it's all part of our creator's plan, the only thing to do is pray to Jesus, and wait for him to return to straighten everything out!!!!! All the while sponging off their flocks!!!!! I will never understand how much time is spent on subjects like the one being discussed here!!!! Meanwhile nobody thinks about bringing an end to the brutal suffering like the raping and murder of babies, children, women, and men!!!!!!!! WAKE UP SHEOPLE SLAVES AND END WAR, MURDER, RAPE, STARVATION, HOMELESSNESS. GREED, THE POISONOUS AND RADICAL MUTILATING MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT, to highlight a few of our creators handiwork!!!!
If there is no God whats to say all that injustice and suffering is actually bad. It's just your opinion. Without God we are all just bits of floating evolved bacteria with no meaning and no purpose. But we all know deep down that ain't true. Like you know deep down evil you see just isn't right. God knows that too. And it bothered him so much he sent his own son to be a redemptive force for his new creation. Revelation 21
30:18 treats Karl Jaspers.
45:00
18:27 deals with evolutionary biology.
Can someone explain the first question to me? Is Hunsinger (Barth) saying that the freedom to say no is actually non-freedom because the only freedom any person has is to say Yes to God? And that we are not free to not sin because the Fall and the Resurrection are both predestined to happen, and that freedom is only achieved through acknowledging God through Christ?
If so, going to the second question, should an individual be responsible for their sins, if the freedom to not sin is not in them? And furthermore, if there is no freedom for the creature in anything other than in choosing God, is free will required for the creature in any other situation/decision that it makes, or, is there no choice for the creature except in the choice of choosing God?
we are not free not to sin because it's like quicksand - once you get in it you can't get out of it by yourself. The Fall isn't necessary, but continuing to sin after the fall isn't something we can opt out of. I don't hear predestination in his answer at all.
The answer here is that Barth's answer is in fact a very deliberate non-answer.
Barth's famous dictum on universalism gives an insight into his thought here: "I don't teach it [universalism] but I don't not teach it". Barth wants to avoid a clear determination that people are going to hell, so he enters into a philosophication of people saying 'no' to God. Put another way, Barth's lack of affirmation of a humans capacity to say 'no' to God arises from his desire to leave the door open to universalism. The philosophical issue of freedom raised by Barth, is in-fact penultimate to the eschatological issue of one's eternal destiny.
Barth's doctrine of election, correctly, updates Calvin and centres election in Christ and not humankind, however it doesn't' have a clear moment of choice for humankind built into it, hence the accusation of universalism. If it did have this choice in place, this would flow into Barth's dogma of freedom and update it with a clear 'no' to accompany the present yes.
Barth is surely wrong to uphold the idea that freedom is only about yes and not no to God, he is also wrong to outline a dogma of election that leaves the door open to universalism through not forcing humans to make a choice for God. See Billy Graham's biography Just As I Am for a pastoral level rebuke of Barth on this issue, by Emil Brunner.
We have to remember that while brilliant, Barth like other great theologians, is not inspired.
The age old question of how can a God of so called love create/permit so much brutal suffering to his so called children! The modern Christian church teaches that it's all part of our creator's plan, the only thing to do is pray to Jesus, and wait for him to return to straighten everything out!!!!! All the while sponging off their flocks!!!!!
I will never understand how much time is spent on subjects like the one being discussed here!!!! Meanwhile nobody thinks about bringing an end to the brutal suffering like the raping and murder of babies, children, women, and men!!!!!!!!
WAKE UP SHEOPLE SLAVES AND END WAR, MURDER, RAPE, STARVATION, HOMELESSNESS. GREED, THE POISONOUS AND RADICAL MUTILATING MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT, to highlight a few of our creators handiwork!!!!
If there is no God whats to say all that injustice and suffering is actually bad. It's just your opinion. Without God we are all just bits of floating evolved bacteria with no meaning and no purpose.
But we all know deep down that ain't true. Like you know deep down evil you see just isn't right.
God knows that too. And it bothered him so much he sent his own son to be a redemptive force for his new creation. Revelation 21