Theologians Label Barth As A Universalist Religion Essay

While it seems to be a popular subject among theologists to label Barth as a “ universalist ” based off his stance on election, Barth fierily denied the claim stating that such a simple apprehension of his divinity detracted from God ‘s Godhead freedom. As in many countries, Karl Barth does non roll from Orthodoxy at this occasion, but shifts his accent plenty from “ the norm ” to do people uncomfortable. Additionally, with Barth ‘s composing non being precise and to the point and alternatively of contending this claim caput on, one can merely happen intimations of Barth ‘s reply ( or possibly refusal to reply ) spread throughout the “ Doctrine of Election ” in Church Dogmatics II/2. Regardless of the decision reached, Barth ‘s philosophy of redemption is and must be informed by his philosophy of God. However, the accusal that Barth ‘s divinity on redemption must reason with the thought that all of humanity must be saved by God seems to be valid as following Barth ‘s philosophy of election will demo. By following his ain logic, Barth must either be a Universalist or there must be disconnect in his divinity.

To first buttocks this subject there are a few premises about Barth ‘s divinity of God and Christ that must be stated. First being Barth ‘s strongly held thought that Christ ‘s decease atones for all the wickednesss of those whom He has died for. For the interest of this paper, the “ how ” of this event is irrelevant. What is of import is that Barth believes that Christ ‘s decease absolves humanity of wickedness. Barth clearly expresses this construct in Church Dogmatics II/2 The Election of God:

“ For if God Himself became adult male, this adult male, what else can this intend but declared himself guilty of the contradiction against Himself in which adult male was involved ; that he submitted himself to the jurisprudence of creative activity by which such a contradiction could merely be accompanied merely by loss and devastation ; that He made himself the object of wrath and judgement to which adult male had brought Himself ; that he took upon himself the rejection which adult male had deserved ; that he tasted Himself the damnation, decease and snake pit which ought to hold been the part of fallen adult male. ”[ 1 ]

Here it is clearly stated that Barth believes that Christ tasted the rejection deserved by humanity as a gift of grace from God so that penalty is avoided by humanity. Barth continues on in his book to province the scope that this gift is felt and who receives this gift of grace from God.

Harmonizing to Barth, Christ ‘s decease is sufficient and efficient for all worlds, intending that His decease merely had the possible to salvage humanity but that Christ ‘s decease really is cosmopolitan. With these two facts entirely one could impeach Barth of Universalist idea. However, it could be argued that Barth ‘s place is that Christ ‘s decease is cosmopolitan in capacity but non in effectivity, therefore leting a manner for the theologist to endorse out of this Universalist thought procedure. Conversely, Barth himself dispels this statement when stating:

“ there is no 1 who does non take part in Him ( Christ ) in His turning to God. There is no 1 who is notaˆ¦.engaged in this turning. There is no 1 who is non raised and exalted with Him to true humanity. ‘Jesus Christ lives, and I with Him ”[ 2 ]

Here we see that Barth believes that Christ ‘s decease is both cosmopolitan and effectual given that Christ ‘s work was completed at the cross. Additionally Barth rejects the traditional Reformation divinity of “ repent, believe and you will be saved ” and embraces the thought that religion is a consequence of acknowledging what God has done for humanity through the Christ event and the gift that flows from the event[ 3 ]. From here one must non continue to label Barth a Universalist, the focal point must now be put onto Barth ‘s divinity of election to better acquire at the bosom of this statement.

While Barth is really long-winded when talking on election the summing up of Barth ‘s return on election is best summed up in transitions such as the followers:

“ This, so is the message with which the chosen community has to near every man-the promise that He excessively is an elite adult male. It is to the full cognizant of his kinky pick. It is to the full cognizant of His godlessnessaˆ¦it is to the full cognizant excessively of the ageless disapprobation of the adult male who is isolated over against God, which is unfailingly exhibited by the atheism of every such manaˆ¦.it knows the wrath and judgement and penalty of God in which the rejection of the adult male isolated over and against God takes its courseaˆ¦ it knows that God by the edict He made in the beginning of all His plants and ways has taken upon Himself the rejection merited by the adult male isolated in relation to Him ; and on the footing of this edict of His the lone genuinely jilted adult male is His ain Son ; that God ‘s rejection has taken its class and been fulfilled and reached its end, with all that that involved against this One, so that it can no longer chafe on the other work forces or be their concern. The concern of other work forces is still the wickedness and guilt of their godlessness- and it is serious and terrible plenty. Their concern is still the agony of the being which they have prepared for themselves by their atheism ( in the shadow of that which the One has suffered for them ) and it is acrimonious plenty to hold to endure this being. Their concern is still to be cognizant of the menace of their rejection. But it can non now be their concern to endure the executing of this menace, to endure the ageless damnation which their atheism deserves. Their desire and their under taking are unpointed in so far as their lone terminal can be to do them rejected. And this is the really end which the godless can non make, because it had already been taken off by the everlastingly appointed offering of the Son of God to endure in topographic point of the godless and can non any long be their end ”[ 4 ]

From this quotation mark one can reason that Barth feels that Christ is the Elect One as the elite service as the summing up of one member: Jesus ; but Christ is besides the Rejected One as the jilted service as the summing up of Christ as good. Jesus is both Elected and Rejected for humanity. However, this thought becomes asymmetrical when applied to worlds as worlds can non be both elected by God but on the other manus rejected by God. Therefore all worlds are elite merely in the sense of holding some kind of relation ( the Christ event ) to the individual member of the Elect: Jesus. Besides for Barth, the wickedness of all worlds has been atoned for by the solitary member of the Rejected: Jesus who accepted this function. Barth would happen it of import to observe that worlds can non be in both classs ; given that Christ is the lone member of the rejected ( due to the cross ) so logically humanity must be in company of the Elect. This is where Barth ‘s divinity begins to seems to side with universalism.

It appears that Barth is stating that all worlds are elite in Christ, the Elected One, based on the power of His absolute and cosmopolitan expiation, while at the same time asseverating that worlds have the capacity to reject Christ and therefore redemption. This is a logical false belief given the complete expiation of Christ that Barth normally asserts and Barth ‘s thought that if a individual is a member of the elect-in Christ so they must be saved. These averments by Barth output to universalism unless Christ ‘s expiation simply merely has the possible to salvage. However, as mentioned above, Barth clearly states that Christ ‘s forfeit is effectual for all humanity therefore there are no jilted worlds, utilizing this thought procedure. Barth can non asseverate that Christ ‘s atonement effects all humanity, is efficient and yet non all are saved. Although, at times Barth uses his divinity of homo ‘s free will to battle the label of “ Universalist. ”

Throughout his Church Dogmatics, Barth seems to propose that the expiation is cosmopolitan but may be opted out by human pick. However, the catholicity of Christ ‘s forfeit places a human in community with the elite regardless ( they are now justified before God ) and a human pick to reject justification. But how could a individual be in both classs? I suspect that Barth means that a human can be justified and reject, non at the same clip, but at different points. However, this thought is debatable because it infers that a human can choose out of election at anytime, promoting the function of the human and homo ‘s free will above that of the Divine ‘s ( an thought that Barth would be wholly against ) as the homo now has the power to take God or non. This thought besides violates Barth ‘s impression of the futility in prevailing to arise against God when a individual ‘s election is unafraid[ 5 ]. However it is sensible to reason that if rebellion against God has no point, so election must be secure to the point that human pick has no consequence on justification. As a consequence, Barth ‘s usage of homo ‘s free will to avoid Universalist divinity is non a valid defence.

So, does Barth state that all are saved? No, Barth explicitly denies a traditional Universalistic place. He insists that all are saved contingently by God ‘s Freedom every bit good as take a firm standing God should salvage any one individual or none at all. If there is one thing that holds together Barth ‘s divinity it is that God is “ the 1 who loves in freedom ” . Of class, if he stopped here, one might of course inquire why anyone would believe of Barth as a Universalist. The job is that Barth sees God ‘s freedom as so overridingly of import that he basically takes an agnostic place on the issue. God, he says, can do the circle of “ frontier crossings ” ( the circle of people who cross from the rejected to the elected ) as broad or every bit narrow as the Deity wants[ 6 ]. Following the entireness of Barth ‘s divinity, one must reason that all humanity is in the community of election with The Elected based, non on personal virtue, but on God ‘s grace. Despite the same mental procedure, Barth comes to a different decision denying any fond regard to Universalism. While this incompatibility may look debatable for most theologists Barth embraces this logical incompatibility saying such a thought procedure would restrict the Godhead freedom. While this reply may be unacceptable for a theologian ( in my sentiment ) I can esteem the humbleness needed to acknowledge a logical false belief in one ‘s divinity every bit good as regard that since God is non bound by human ground Barth ‘s reply is non theologically wrong. Alternatively, Barth is basically stating that he does non cognize the cryptic will of God and alternatively of concentrating on the negative ( rejection ) the church should concentrate entirely on witnessing and brining others to God through Christ. This is why Barth does non advance or encompass universalism but by following his divinity one could reason that Eden is for all.