Please allow me this foray into Barth without labelling me forevermore 'a Barthian'! (Though I think I have a rather cheeky article in me entitled 'the Barthianism of DB Knox'...!!!)
I am currently reading Barth's Church Dogmatics II.ii. In this volume he puts forward perhaps his most remarkable - and controversial - theological innovation: his doctrine of election. He is well aware of the novelty of his position: but his claim is that this is the only biblical way of construing the doctrine. That at least on the face of it is his ground.
Of course, Barth is a Reformed theologian in the tradition of Calvin, and so it is the Reformed commitment to predestination and election that drives him. And it is the Reformed tradition that he must supercede if he is to establish his version. His discussion of the Supra- vs Infra- lapsarian positions - in small print of course - is absolutely crucial. What he claims is that the Supralapsarian position - the least popular and least accepted alternative - is the more consistent and more rigorous. The tendency of Infralapsarianism is to offer the incarnation as God's plan B - a response to the fall rather than a decree from all time. But Supralapsarianism, with its implication that God has decreed some for damnation even before the fall is a tough sell! Which clears the ground for him to offer his correction of both positions.
And it is this: Jesus is the answer. Before the foundation of the world, God in Christ made his double decree of election and reprobation. Where he scores a hit against the Reformed construals is in their tendency to rely on an account of God's decrees which makes them inscrutable and mysterious, invisible and unrevealed. Speculation abounds (and it does!) Whereas, by making Jesus the electing God and the elected man, he is able to talk about the election of God as revealed in full view of humankind.
Now I need to read some critiques of his position - or hear them from my kind readers....
8 comments:
I think that Reformed theology (post Calvin) has often downplayed the role of Christ in election. But Calvin taught that Christ is "the mirror of our election". I posted on this a little while ago,
http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/2007/05/christ-mirror-of-our-election.html
See also Paul Helm on Barth, Calvin and the "Hiddennes of God".
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/06/john-calvin-and-hiddenness-of-god.html
One of the problems with this debate is that Barth's historical renditions cannot always be trusted. 16th and 17th century expositions of election are much more Christocentric than people give credit for.
Yeah - I agree with Marty. You should read the relevant chapter in Steve Holmes "Listening to the Past" (I think it's called Karl Barth's doctrine of Reprobation). The main biggy against the whole caboodle is the fact that Barth places election firmly within the doctrine of God (cf. Gunton too which is, I suppose, where Holmes derives most of his critiques from) which, as a corollary, makes God's self dependant upon election and ergo God dependant upon mankind etc. etc.
I don't see what the problem is with incarnation being a response to the fall. Consider that before the fall, God walked with man in the garden, however symbolically we want to take that. So instead of thinking of it as plan B, think of it as the restoration of plan A.
Jon, i find it remarkable that Barth could be accused of making himself dependent on election and therefore on mankind - that would be twisting his words (on my reading so far).
Alex: I am not sure I follow you. The plan B problem is that the incarnation becomes not the greater but the lesser option...
Of course, the best thing to read on this is Ben Myers - on the for side that is.
Also, have you noticed that O'Donovan argues that this is what Cranmer does in the articles?! (See his chapter "Salvation in Christ" in On the Thirty Nine Articles, esp. pp.82-87). O'Donovan is clearly in favour of Barth's doctrine, I think, although he may perhaps over-read Cranmer (and Parker) here.
When grace is made the unifying attribute the grace of God shines through the wrath of God which is a manifestation of the grace of God.
Inherently, then, for Barth, the all-comprehending attribute is grace.
God is the electing God. The comfort of the gospel is that Christ is the electing God. You don’t have to look beyond Christ, there is no possibility that someone could not be elect. There are no men that are not elected in Christ. “Christ is the elected man.”
Christ became the reprobate man for all men so none will be reprobated.
The penultimate word is reprobation, but the ultimate word is salvation.
Clearly the implication is a form of universalism.
I find difficulty with these ideas because:
A. Election for Barth does not pertain to persons. However it does pertain to persons in the New testament Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the message of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed.
B. The Scriptures still maintain the reality of wrath to those who continue in unbelief John 3:16-21 For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God. 19 “This, then, is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who practices wicked things hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed. 21 But anyone who lives by the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be shown to be accomplished by God.”
C. The scriptures still maintain a moving from a class of unsaved people to saved people. John 5:24 I assure you: Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life.
None of these things would be possible were all elect in Christ.
Steve
I'm writing a summary of Holmes' article 'Karl Barth's Doctrine of Reprobation' in two parts on my blog. It may be of some help.
Post a Comment