Brunner's Criticism of Karl Barth's Doctrine of Election

ABSTRACT

Title: " mnil Bramer's Criticism of Karl Barthls Doctrine of Election"

A thesis su1::mitted 'to the Department of Religious Studies,

McGi1l University, Juq, 1970, in partial fuWllment of the requirements

for the degree ot S.T.M., by Stephen Andrew Hayes.

Brunner criticizes Barth's central concept that Jesus Christ

is electing God and e1ected man, his " univera,.usm," and bis denigration

ot faith. Brunner believes that Barth' s chiet the sis fails to satistl

the biblical criteria. He asserts that Barth 's understanding of " double

predestination " leac1s to uni versa11B11l. He a1so argues that Barth' s

approach to theology is so "objective" that it leaves no: real °room for

the decision of taith. The thesis acc;epts Brurmer's critic~sm of Barth 's

interpretation ot Jesus as e1ecting and elected, but expreeses reservation: "

on Barth's "universalism" and bis " objectivisme"

Whi1e the tirst impression is that Brunner and Barth have

two videly dittering in~,erpretations of election, a closer ° reading

reveals a surprising degree of similarity.

It is argued that Barth does malee SaDe ext.rer:.J etatements, let. ..

the retom of ~e doctrine of e1ection is seen to lie in the direction

that Barth and. Bx,mner indicate.

CONlENTS

CHAPrER ONE JESUS CHRIST AS BJJ!CTING GaD AND 1 ELmTED H4N. Il KARL BARrR 1 S DœTRI~ OF ELBX:TION '

CHAPl'ER TWO BRUNNERIS CRITIC~, OF BARrHIS 12 CENl'RAL CONOEPr

CHAPrER THREE DOm KARL BARrHIS VIEW OF ELECTICII' 46 LEAD TO UNIvmsALISK ?

C.HAPrER FOUR RESPOHSIBILITY 67

CHAPrER no AœEaIEllr BErWEEN KARL BARTH AND 83 BŒL, BRUNNER ON THE" DOCTRINE OF EIECTION

CHAPl'ER SIX CORlLUSIOBS: WITH sam GUIDELINES 93 FOR A' OONlœPORARr STATliMÉNl' OF THE DOCTRINE OF ELlOOTION .

APPENDIXONE IS DANS 9-11 THE LœUS CLASSICUS 104 OF PREDESTINATIQI ?

APPENDIX NO KARL BARTH 1 S DOOTBDiE OF liir..lOOTION 114 CCHPARED TC THE TEACHlrG OF THE WESTMIISTER COIFESS!OI OF FAIT~

BIBLIOGRAPHY 124

MCGILL UNIVERSITY

MONTREAL

EMIL BRUINER'S CRITICISM OF KARL BARrH'S DOCTRINE OF ELl!X:TION

STEPHEN ANDREW HAYES

DEPARrMElll' OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES, JULY, 1970

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARl'IAL FULFIWŒNT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF S.T.K.

Cc) Stephen Andrew Ha:v.ea 1971 l

CHAPTER ONE

JESUS CHRIST AS ELFnTING 'GOD Am). ELPD'fED HAN IN KARL BARrH' S

DOCTRINE OF ELmTION

The unifYing concept in Karl Barth's doctrine ot election is

Jesus Christ as electing God and elected lIan. This tirst chapter shall

present a briet rGsum.' ot his doctrine ot election. This will provide

a general outline ot his interpretation ot predestination and will de­

aonstrate that the key: to his theo17 is Jesus Christ viewed as electing

and elected.

1

Most ot wt.at Barth has written on this subject 1s tound in

Chapter VII, Volume II, Part 2, ot the Church De_tics and is, preSeDH!i

in tour sections. The tirst section is ~ The Problem ot a Correct Doctrine

ot the Election of Grace." In turn, this is divided into three suh-sections

the tirst of which is Il The Orientation ot the Doctrine." Predestination

i8 clear17 to be regarded as Gospel, as good news, indeed as the " SUR (1) ,

ot the Gospel" (p.91). It i8 taken to be part ot the doctrine ot God (p.9).

That i8, what we lJlean by the werd " God " i8 now in part defined b)" the .

concept ot election. The orientation i8 a departure rr,., CalviniSlJl in

that election is net interpreted as s1Do~ous vith double predestination.

Barth speaks of the .. shadow" umer which this doctrine is now s!,en and he

states as bis avowed purpose the dispersal ot this shadCDw (p.l.3).

, But how is this shadow to be dispersed ? This question leads te

(1) When page num.bers are given tollowing a quatation the)" will invariably reter tG) the chiet source tor this thesis, naaely: Karl Barth's Church Dopatics, VolUllle II, Part 2, Ed1n~gh, T; and T. Clark, 1957.

2

the sectien en " The Feundatien et the Dectrine Il and the tirst clear statement et the Christecentric n~ture et his interpretatien. The teundatien et the doctrine is clearly te be in the Script ures (p. 35 ), but these in t1,U"n lead. ene to Jesus Christ (p. 91) • Tbis toundatien is choserl in

deliberate centrast te other.norms -- tradition, utility, experience, and previdence. In this section Barth als. presents an incisive analysis ot the Calvinist aphasis on the hidden decree • To say that predestination is ultimate~ greunded upen such a decree is also te sq that Ged has a will apart trllD Jesus Christ and tbat Christ is net Ged' s tinal wrd to manldnd. It one is to attempt to restore this emphasis en the hidden decree one is theretore implying that the toundatien et the dectrine. ls other than Christ or the Script ures. In this section Barth prflsents sœne concepts that will be greatly expanded in the teUowing , parts .. :-

" There is 1'l8 greater depth in Ged' s being and werk than tha:t. l"~vt!l~ed

in these happenings and under this nae. Gresu;j " (p.54). Christ is

seen as. ~ elect man: " 0 •• If we weuld know what electien is, what it is t. be elected by Ged, then we must l .. k away frem aU others, and

excluding allside-glances or secondar.r thoughts we must leek eoly upon the name ot Jesus Christ • • • " (pp. 58-59). Jesus Christ is seen net only as " the basis of the doctrine of election " (p. 60 ), but it ia claimed that " • • • knowledge ot election is only a distinctive torm ot the lmowledge ot Jesus Christ. 1I (p.60).

Barth then discusses " The Place ot the D!tQtrine in De~~tic a'." Why is the dectrine c.onsidered here and net elsewhere ? W1V ls it placed within the doctrin~ ot Ged? The answer is that electien has t. de with grace. It is the election ot srace. The church must Il ••• never speak as though it had ta de with semeone other tb~ the gracious Ged Il (p.93).

Barth writes that " ••• God HimsE!lf does IlOt will to be God, and ia

not Gad except as One who elects n (p.77). The special function ot

the doctrine is seen as bearing witness to this truth and its place

regarded as enabling it to fultill tbis purpose.

Part two great13 expaDda the interpretation of the role of

Christ in e1ection, and is entitled " The Election of Jesus Christ."

Christ is in bis own person " the election of grace " (p.9S). He is

both the elected one and the e1ecto~ (p.10S). Kany Scripture reterences

are cited to establish that Christ is unique and that we are e1ect

" in Him." The focus, however, falls upon John 1.1-3, and Jf:phesiaDs.1.4. r

Alter arri ving at a certain interpretation of the foœer, Barth seemB

to und,rstand ~ other passages, and especiall3 EpAesians 1.4 in its . . ~ . . ..

llght. '1;he tull meaning of "in Him" is therefore regarded as pointing

to Jesus as e1ector and e1ected. This is a difticult and a probl~tic

area of Barth's stud;y and will receive detailed attention in our nen i

Chapter. t

It is important to realize that for Barth election has to

do with a primal deciaion made within the Trinit,..: " The fact that God ~ i

is means that fran all eternity God is active in His inner relationshipa o .

as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost •••• The origin of the proclamation

within God Himself is predestination Il (p.17S). Predestination ia thus !

the divine act of will i tselt and not soma result of that will (p. 181) • ,

Enomous emphas1s, therefore, i s placed on what might be t~œed aupra-, , . , hiatory: " The secret of everything that ta}<ea place in the world ia

! the decision of God which eternally" precedes it " (p.18S). It ia llttle

wonder, ;then, that in his discussion of Intralapaarian1sm- Supralapsariani8lll,

Barth sides decisively vith the latter albeit in ~ t.oœ that is "purified.n .. ' , ',' -.1 ' .. ' . ,

','1' ..

His viewa are well-stated in the tellowing quetatien:

What Supralapsariani8lll vas trying to sq lias that in the beginn:1ng et a11 things, in the ete mal purpeses et Geel be.tere the wrld and betere hi st ery , there was the electing Ged and elected man, the mercitul and just Ged and ever against that Ged trllll aU etemit7 b!!!! labilis, man sintul. and lest •••• On the centr&17, In.tra­lapsarianism cleses aU deers which might epen in this directic.

4

It erdains anether decree ever and a beve that et predestinatien. the decree et creatien and previdence. and that et the taU (p.143).

But it traditional Supralapsariani8lll is lJ8rmal~ regarded

as excessi~e~ stern in its interpretatien et Ged' s will. tJle rever.e

can prebably be sud et Barth 's theery. This mq als. be di8cei'Ded in his

particular understanding et· dwb1e predestinatien.Ged is s&id prima.riq

te have Il elected er predestinated !ij.mselt Il (p. 162). Ged bas n • • •

ascribed to man the ter.mer, e1ectien, salvatien and lite; and to Himael.t

He has ascribed the latter, reprebatien, perdition, and death n (p. 163).

Ged bears mag'S rejectien ( p.165). That is the meaning et ~le e1ectien

ter Barth.

Barth ence mere returns te an attack an the hidden decree.

The will et Ged is Jesus Christ (p. 157). It dees ne.t reside in 8 .. -hidden decree.(p. 158). The will et Ged in the e1ectien et Jesus Christ

is the key theught t~t he presents: tt The substitutien et the e1ectien

et Jesus Christ ter the decretum abse1utum is, then, the deci.ive peint

in the amendment et the dectrine et predestinatien. It enab1es us ter the

tirst tilDe te sh.w and te sq that we can rea11y believe in divine e1ectien Il

(p.161).

The third part et Chapter VII is Il The Electien et the C_Wlity.'!

We nete that this is censidered betere the e1ectien et the individua1, and

must'· realize the deliberate nature et this erder. This part is a 8uatained

exegesis .f Rtmans 9-ll, a section of the Scriptures olten taken as

the locus classicus of individual election - reprobation but which is

rather considered b.r Barth as probing the relation between Israel and

the 0 hurch and an inqui17 into Israel 1 s unbelief. The aphasis that

emerges fran Barth 1 s s tudy of these critical~ important chapters of

5

the 'Bible has to do with the oneness of the cœmunity of faith from

which vantage point alone the election of the individual must be perceived.

( pp. 196-197). The object of election is Il ••• neither Israel for

itaelt, nor the Church for Uself, but both together in their unit Y "

(p.199). y .. t even within this discussion Christ is recognized as the

ao~ce of Godls tolerance of Israel1s unbelief and hence the reason

why thia c~unity must be accepted in a deep and an abiding unity. Barth

writes that " • • • what matters about Israel is not Israel, but theChzoist (1)

pr.CJDised to Israel and Israel for liis sake." Christ is the key to Goc1ls

continued acceptance of Israel: " In the re8urrection of Jesus Christ, God

Himeelf has c~elled both the !!E!! of the Jewish ~jection of Christ

and also that of the rejection of the Jewa, acknow1edging against the

will of Israel, His own will with Israel • • • " (p.291) .In the passage

which Barth reg~rds as the" focal point of the whole exposition" ( of

Romans 9-11), the parable of the potter in chapter 9, Christ,is int~rpreted as

the vessel of Mercy referred to in Romans 9.23 and is prefigured in Mp.es,

David, and the prophets (p.228). In speaking of Moses and Pharaoh)Barth

goes to the extent of saying that God " • • • uses them both as wi tnesses

to Jesus Christ, each in his own way Il (p.223).

(1) l{arl Barth, ! Shorter Commentaq 2!! Romana, London, SOM, 1959, p.115. j

~."'" ·.C,l,uq,!. this third part ia also dominated b7 the

unit,ring thought of Jesus Christ as the ke,y to election.

6

The ·fourth and last part of Chapter VII is .. The Election

of the Individual." Though this comes last in his treatment of the

doctrine of election, it cannot be said that he denigrates the place

of the individual.Ba.rt.h presents a brief and fascinating survel" of the

development of the situation whereb,y almost the entire concentration of

the st~ of the doctrine of predestination became focuaed on the indi­

vidual. In this developnent Barth finda a mirror for the general spiritual

hi.tory of the West (p.306). He remarks that it is no coincidence that

Augustine, the tather of the classical doctrine, was also the tirst writer

of Christian autobiography. The decisive change whereb;r predestination

became concerned almost totall3' with the individual rather than the camnunit1,

however, was in Calvin (p.307). This, claims Barth, paved the wq eventu.al.l3'

for PietiSID, Rationalism, and even secular individualiSID (p.308).

And ;ret Barth's concern in this part is to point te the fact

that there is indeed a proper place tor the individua~ in predestination

a ..... ld that the doctrine is so stated that the individU&! is not. lost in

the communit;r. Barth writes that Il It is individuals who are chosen and

not the totality of men" (p.3l3). Han, then,. is predestined as an indi­

vidual and not merel3' as a member of a group ( p.314 ).

A consideration of individual election 1eads him to deliberate

on a nwnber of other issues. One such is man's choice of evil: .. In de­

fiance of God and to his own destruction, he (man) mal" indeed behave and

conduct himself as isolated man, and therefore as man rejected b7 God ..

(p.3l6).But the most this individual m&y' do i8 to " represent " this

7

man. He cannot ~ this man " • • • for in Jesus Christ Gad bas ascribed

this to Himaelf ••• and taken it away fraa JIaD • (pp.316-317). Another

issue is that of assurance. This ia one of th08e qaastiODS Iddch illllDinates

the whole doctrine of election and the iqadeqaac.r or the traditional fo~­

ulations: 1. The need for total revision of tbis dopa ls p1.ajnly shown

by' the histor;y of this subsidia.r.Y' problea Il (p.339). Assuraoce, as Barth

interprets it, while accompanied b7 inner j07~is based DOt 0Il self­

eXAUDination, or emotion, but rather upon Christ's e1..ect.i0ll am the believer'a

elsction .. in and with " Christ'a election (p.339).

Barth also deals at length with Godas election or individual

men in the. Bible. He points to a tradition of the • ••• continuaJ.l.y

operative principle of the distingui~hing choies • • •• and n • • •

the freedan with which this choice cuts across aDd. eOlltradicts all dis­

tinctions t~at are humanly regulated or planned on the basis of h1lUll

predilections" (p.356). However, even in this choice, It. ls DOt the case

that those who are not chosen are utterly rejeeted. Tbe.r are· blessed, in

their own wq and have their own destil11' to fulfil. (p.356).

W~ are told that the divin~ electiOll ceaaes t.o dif'ferentiate

among iDdividuals with the end of the patriarchal. ta1..es or Genesis (p.356).

Israel as a whole ia thua separated fram all peoples (p.356). Withthe

aphasis of election now falling upon the natiœ as a vhol..e, Barth 1 pro­

ceeds to a consideration of some matters which lie at the hart of the

national concern and the national religion. For tb1s reason he pondera

the place of aacrifice in the Old Testament. He belieYes that the aacrifices

spokan of in Leviticus, chapter 14, for inat.ance, poiDt. to Christ. Even

the sacrificial systea in its own way ~,pl!'efj;gures __ ~ CIirJ.at.· but .,.

8

election, tor the sacrifices were tor the sake ot others. Ipthis w~

the symbolism which was 210 deeply a part ot that system P\)~ts to Christ

and to the elaction ot Christ. In considering national institutions he

writes also Qt the role ot ldngship in the Old Testament and, reminds us

that ldngs were' , ,

__ ~..r.l .. !F-.:../.;;; .... r_._o_, ___ , the anointed ones. Barth's

discussion ranges over the lives. ot Saul, David, and Jonathan, through

each ot whan, it ia claimed, God worked. We are also reminded that n •

• • the Israelite kingdOlll is the prototype and copy of the Kingdan of

Jesus Christ" (P. 390). Thus even within this detailed consideration

of election within the Old Testament Barth has no hesitation in asserting

Christ as the one witnessed to •

Barth &lso inquires into Il. The Determination ot the Elect."

That is, what is the desti~ ot the elect? To what is the elect one

elected? The answer gi ven is that he ia chosen to be Il. • • the kind

ot man tor whom Jesus Christ is ••• Il and that he is elected Il •••

in and with the community ot Jesus Christ Il (P.UO). Thus Christ and his

cammunity are the detennination, goal, and content ot the lite ot the

elect (p.4ll). This determination, specitic&l~, i8 to be. loved: Il Qbvious~,

no man can be anything other or better than this - one who is loved b;y

God " (p.411). The elect, t'hus are in the service of God and ot Christ,

the Il apostle ot grace " (p.US). The elect;consti~tuter an apostolate ot

grace and imeed this is the," meaning and lite ot the Christian cOJllJlunity

(p.4lS). Barth '!ziow1 : r..ai.e~ the question ot universalisme In spite ';

ot his sweeping view ot double predestination which seems to rule out

reprobation ot any kind, he specitically warns against universalism

( as in the doctrine ot apokatastasis) (p.U7). But he warns also against ;

9

a denial of the doctrine (p.US). His position is to maintain the free-

dan of divine grace: " It belongs to God Himselt· to determine and to know

what it means that God was reconciling the world to Himself ( 2 Cor.5.19) ..

(p.U9). The concern of the elect is alw~s with this reconciliation:

II This is the determination under which they live" (p.U9). He concludes

this sub-section of part four by stating: II If God elects a man, it is that

he m~ be a witness to Jesus Christ and therefore a proclaimer of His own

glory II (p.449).

The last sub-section is II The Determination of the Rejected." A

rejected man is II • • • one who isolates himselt fraD. God b7, resisting

his electing as it has t aken place in Jesus Christ. 1I CP. 449). Ht; l!elterates

his qlèntal';': of doubl. predestination as it has normally been understood

(p.450). Evenhere one ~ see his Christocentrism. The rejected one does

not constltute ,an independent entlty. His heing is a Il beingwith II (p.453).

That 115, it exists only :: Ih~, relationshlp to the elect -- to Christ and. to

the man elected in Him (p.453). It is a shadow existence, one tlult II yields

and dissol'yes and dissipates Il (p.453). And "et lt is deaclly enough and serious

enough within the limitsi.~t;, by God. The point" is that the rejected have

no final ., v~ltiditY' because of the very nature of their opposition which

exists only' as a relation. Indeed, rejection has to he seen in the light

of Christ '15 &Ct: he has borne the rejection of t he rejected ( " With Jesus

Christ the ~jected can only' h!!! ~ rejected. He cannot B! rejected

&ny more II (p.453».

The cloeing part now de&ls with Judas Iscariot Il ••• the

character in which the problem of the rejected le concentrated and

10

developed in the New Testament ••• "(p.458). Tbis rejected one, ot

course, wa. in the closest p.ssible p~ity to Christ. Judas alone .t ."

the twelve was, like Jesus, of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of;,Qa'Vid

(p.459). He was clearly one of the inner group, " Judas, one of the

twelve." He shared -however passively - the inner lite of the tw~v.e.

Evidently he ate of the Last Supper, er at least none of the Synoptists

deni:ed that he did so (p.459). The New TestUlent account does not state that

which s.a.. assllU,that Judas was not a genuine apostle. He too, we must

aurm1s9,confessed Jesus as the Christ ( John 6.68f.).

'What, in tact, was, Judas' betrqal ? It was a " handing over ..

et Jesus to the authoritiesj it was the revealing to them of a convenient

time when Jesus could be arrested with the least possible disturbance.

The e.sential fact here is that Jesus was delivered by one or his om

disciples and that frOlll withiD the church. Here the church " • ~ •

stands and acts in identity with the Israel wbich rejected its Hessiah

..... (p.460). The sin of Judas contains this mystery and tbis parad~x

that " ••• the~more·profO\Jnd:lt.and cQlllprehensively we attempt to fomulate

the sin and guilt of Judas, the more near17 bis will and deed approach

what neitherh~ him~elf willed and di~nor the people et Israel, nor the

Gentiles at whose head he finally appears ~ the more nearly his will and

de,ed approach what God willed and did in this matter ••• " (p.50l). At

the moment of ultimate rebelllon, st~ngely, the rebel acts in accoDiance

with God's will. At the point where sin reaches its fullest, there grace

overflews ( Romans 5.20). Indeed, in its own w~, the action ot Judas is

indispens~ble in the drama ef salvation (p.502).

In a cloaing paragraph" Barth proclaims his beliet that God willl

11

that Judas also should hear the Gos~el and with it the pr.omise ot his

electim (p. 506). His determination is If • • • to hear and sq that he is

a rejected man elected Il (p.56o).

~ " This concludes eur briet resume ot Barth 1 s Chapter on election

in the Church Desmatics. Our purpose was to demonstrate the gener~ nature

of his interpretation and ta show that the essence of his theor,r resides

in his particular ~erstanding .t Jesus Christ as electing Geel and elected

man. In .rder tair17 to assess. Barthls pesition one must argue· ·tei'!

or against this central and dominating concept. We have seen that Barth

takes the'.Bible.u. the .1'eundatiop. et his tpeOl7- • It will have to be asked

how accurately he has read the Bible. Indeed, this will emerge as the

central question.

With this general introduction to Barthls thoughts on election,

we now turn to Brunner's criticisms.

12

CHAPl'ER TWO

BlUJNNER' S CRI'rICISK OF BARrH' S CENl'RAL CONlEPl

Brunner's theology of election is ver,y similar to Barth's

with the marked exception ot the latter' s central concept. It is important,

however, to realize that Brunœr ascribes great importance to thiis doctrina,

that he believes f'imly in the ~ qatia, but that he rejeets any notion

of' a hidden decree. Indeed, f'or him as well as Barth, electiCil must be

regarded on17 ~ ~n Christ. Likewise, Brurmer energeticall7 rejects the •

determiniSln that has àf'ten accOillpanied belief' in election,as well\~biLe · .

predestination (and its opposite, universalism) l'Election t.hen must be · (1)

sta.ted in harmony vith the Bible. But to do so is to speak of' it Ollly (2)

n ••• on the bas~s of the revelation in Jesus Christ." Yet it is precise17 l (.3)

these two concerne that lead him to attack Barth' s chief' insight. His 1 t

criticism, .in ~ssence, is that Barth's twof'old thesis of' Jesus as electing (4~

God. and elected man lacks support f'ran the Scriptures. Co~ected vith :,', ! ,

tbis charge is the allegation that Barth i8 resorting to a ": natur&1. theo-~ .

logy" - theorizing on the buis of' etatem.ents which are biblical. but which ) . (5) "

nonetheless 1:&nnot be proved by the scriptures. That is, Barth gqes beyond · )

that which the evidence aliows. Clear17, these two theol~811s share the ~ . i

same pramse, that the f'oundation of' their theology is the Bible. The ;

question has to do vith" ••• loyalty to the explicit Witness of' the (6)

Scfiptures. 1I

(1) »nil ~~er, .. Ib.! Christian Doctrine !1! God, Dogmatics l, p • .346.

(2) ~., p.347. (.3) ~., p.347. (4) i:!!!!! • .ip.347. (S) ~.; p.351. (6) !2!!!.j p.314.

, , London, Lut~ervorth, 1960, .

Brunner's criticism points to a very important issue, for it

ia not as though he were concerned to be biblicaJ. and Barth. unconcemed

about the biblical foundation for bis theor,y • Rather bath desire to

maintain the Bible as the foundation of their dosœatics in general and

in the reconstruction of the doctrine of election in particular. Barth

himaelf devotes considerable space in bis Church Doseatics, Il,2, to

presenting lengt~ exe~e8is of passages he considera relevant.to the

inquiry. However, what canplicates matters, 1 believe, is Barth's particular

reading of the Bible. The appeal to the Scriptures does DOt appear to be

in dispute in this controversy; rather is the question the wa7 in which the

Bible is read.

What is Barth 1 S approach and how would he defend bimself in

presenting it? A full discussion of this question would entail a detailed

exami'nation of the Church DOgmatics , l,l, and especially Chapter l, .. The " '

Word of God as the Criterion of Dogmatics." We find there a biblicism but

not a simple biblicism. The Word of God is not simply to be equated with the

Bible • In itself it is not revelation but rather is witness to revelation.

The Bible ia Cod 1 s Word " 80 far as God lets it be His word, so far as Cod (1)

speaks through tt." Barth m.tes of this in the present vollDe under .

discussion and questions the hermeneutical. concept ". beh1nd much of the

traditional.e~gesis upon wbich the <1al.vin1st .... doctrine of election was

founded. He writes that the words of the Bible point us to the Word and

that Il Baside and above and behind this Word there ls none ather n (p.1SO).

This Word is Jesus Christ (p.150). lt appears then that Cbrlst ia the' proper

hermeneutical principle for the interpretation of the Bible. This becanes

thus. a basis for what we might term theological exegesis. lndeed pondoring

Barth 1 s complete identification of the Word with Jesus)'would it be going

(1) Karl Barth, Church D081l].&t:k:.I, l,l, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, p. 12.3.

14

too far to term his interpretation Christological exeges~a ? Certainly

this suggestion is inherent in the accusation commonly made of his Dosmatic8

that they are Christomonistic, a charge to which,we shall have to give

attention at a later point in this the sis.

Whatever else ia said of his exegesis it can scarcely be denied . (1)

that it has a speculative character. Barth provides a Most illuminating

comment on his general approach in his remark, on the speculative character

of Supralapsarianism • It will be recalled that in the examination he

gi ves to the Supralapsarian-Infralapearian controversy, Barth argues

forcet'ully for what is termed a " purified Supralapsarianiam~ ~ one which

stresses in the strongest possible terme the decisions made by Gad befo~e

the foundation of the world ,but these in the direct,ion of grace rather

than in that of the harsh proclamations of the classici' doctrine. That is,

in Barth' s view , the reje,cted one ie Jesus Christ who has borne our rejection.

Thus rejection is indeed established before the foundation of the world --

but not man'., rather Christ's. Thus the form of his theory does coincide

with the classic doctrine, but the content bears only the Most tenuous

relation to Supralapsarianism as that term is normally understood. In bis

elever· ',diagnos:iJs of the controverey, Barth raiees th" question of the

speculative basis of Supr&l.apsariahl.sm. The answers to his own question

provide insight into the speculative basis of his own exegesis; especially

is this the case when one recalls that he argues for a type of Supralap­

sarianism. He writes that the doctrine is " • • • not quite so speculative

as a firet and general glance would suggest • • • • but it is rather

• • • something in the nature of a sally against speculative theology in

(1) For instance, we may refer to Prof. W1le'. ~evi~w of Church DOgmatica, II.,2, in Theology, number 62, 1959: "There 1a a tendency toW'ards'looeel affirmations of a speculative c~àracter which all conform to the pro­fessed oasis of Barth 1 s thougbt. '~ , ,.

15

general Il. (p.l);). Il The)" became,1I he writes, Il speculative in the

bad sense'on~ in the abstract use which the)" permitted theœselves

to make of the biblical concepts of merc)" and jusf,iC'e Il (p.l35). TÎieir

failing, then, vas not speculation. Rather it was a failure to see

Christ at the centre of 'all God' s work and way: " They were speculative

in that the)" did not start vith the concrete fOnB of these questions and

Il of .God Himself. (p. 1)5). Thus Barth argues not against theorizing, but.

theorizing on an incorrect basis • He does not say that it is wrong to

speculate. He says that speculation in some cases is inevitable - as a

defence against bad speculation, ~d that in ever,ycase it must be established

on the Word of Gad, Jesus Christ. This way of reasoning is carr1ed on in

bis defence of Jesus as electing Gad and elected man. In answer to the

question as to how one knows that Christ is elector and elected, he

replies: " We ma)" ask the older exponents of the doctrine bow the)" on

their side know about a God and man who in the last analysis are unknow.n.

If we do, we shall be brought up against constructs which more cl08e~

resemble philosophical retlection on the origin and development of being

than the)" do the confession of a Christian understanding of God and man"

(P.US). The claim then, that we do not know sanething in turn ruses

the question of how do ve know that we do not know ? Again;,. this sort of

reasoning i8 meant to justif)" the speculative nature of Barth's own theory.

However, ithfs J.pz!Oè~ .. 'b. ·lb8l1.~"''.:Q) -:be. i go'vèm8d;·:.by. .:..t.~ ~ Bible:' ,,; 'lbe

decisive point ia the reading of the Bible itself Il (p.148)"œ!e appeals,

as did the older theologians~ to Ranans 9-11 and using the nQnnal. canons of

exege.is offers a variant interpretatioru to election as it is witne.sed to (1)

in those passages tban the one offered by the older Calvinist interpreter ••

(1) See Appendix One.

16

Barth claim~ that thes. .' interpreters forgot to adhere to Il .. • •

the coherent whole of scriptural witness Il (p.152) The passages dealing

with p~destinatiol1l .. like aU passages" must. be read in the context. ot

the whole Bible and that means with an understanding that the Word ot GGd

is the content ot the Rible " (p.152) .Barth writes that the departure

tram this principle made the older doctrine ot predestination inevitahle , .

(p.152). It is probably true to ~ay that adhere.nce to bis principle ot

interpretation likewise makes b!! doctrine inevitable.

In response to tbis general approach several important

and serious questions expressing reservations about this hermeneutics

need te be asked. How tar, for instance, Carl one app13 human logic to

the doctrine of predestination? Did not Calvinism becane bogged down

precisely because it tried to be logical about the ways ot God with maq.?

Thus)reading of God's election ot people ta salvation, Calvinists thought

it logical te· speak ot God's eleotion to damnation as well • That, ot

course, is Calvinism at what we might term its toughest, rut the general. (1)

way of reasoning is not unrepresentative ot Calvin himselt. Can one

object to Calvinism on these grounds and then aUow the application of

logic to Scriptural. data to establish a new doctrine of election ?

(1) John Calvin, ~ Instit~s g!'~ Cbristian Religton, London, James Clarke and Co., 1957, Henr,y Beve~dge, trans., Vol.II, p.2l0

"We say, then, that Scripture clear13 proves tbis much, tl)at God by bis etemal and ~ .utable counsel detennined once and for aU those whom it· was bis pleasure one dal to ~t to salvation, and those whom, on the otherhand, .it was his pleasure to doom to de­stru~tion. We maintain that this couneel, as regards the elect, is rounded on bis free mercy, wi thout any respect. to human worth, whUe those whom he do oms to destruction .. e excluded tram access to lite by a just and blameless, but at thé same time :f.ncomprehensible judgment ...

17

As impertant as this question,is the other one dealing

with Barthls appeal tothe coherent whole of the ~iblical record. This

principle on first. reading appears sound enough. What Barth.!!!!!!. to be

saying is that we must ever keep the end in View • That. is, we must always

have a sense of perspective in our reading of the Bible. The end, after

all, has to do with Godls graciousness supremely as it is seen in the Ward.

If that. were all he was asserting one could not. argue with him, for t.o argue

would be t.o quibble. But let us' realize that he is saying much more t.han

t.hilis anJ ind.eed that he i8 appealing to a principle of hermeneutics which

i8 new and which we must regard as highly dubious. The salient point. in

exegesis h&8 .. ~s been the iDDediate c~mtext. of a verse or passage --

its l' situation in life " as the German scholars would sq • This does not.

mean that therefore one ~ forget. the overall t.hrust. of t.he.Bible as a whole.

But likewise it does not mean that we can suberdinate t.he illlnediate cont.ext.

t.o the total one. To do so would be disastrous t.o t.he scientific study of

the Scrij)tures • Thus we would suggest that it is not. goed enough to offer

a theological exegesis of t.he Bible, or at least. there is no h~ iD that

so long as one is willing to have one 1 s interpret.at.ion judged by the normal

canons of biblical inquir,y. It is insufficient t.o assert that. the invoking

of these standards is an appeal to a simplebJ.blicism. Arter all, Barth is

t.he one who has said that his foundat.ion i8 biblical and t.hat. t.he final

quest.ion has to do with the " reading " of the Bible it.self. Perhaps doctrine

needs t.o be tounded on something more speculative t.han biblical interpretat.ion.

Cortainly Reformed Theelogy which has been mest. strident of all C~ri8t.ian

greups in its demand for a blblical theelogy has evelved a tradit.ion of its

own and one indeed which has assumed life ef 1t.s own quit.e apart from

18 (1) .

Scriptures. Barth does present & stNng a.rgum~nt tor showing the

canpatiblity .r bis central thesis with the evidence or Scripture.

JI~ .. ~laigls.} .l, however, te be deiilg IDGre than this. His centention is

that the Bible itselr supports his ~nterpretation or Jesus as elector and

elected. 1 believe that on the nonaal canons or the scientific exegesis

of the Scriptures this assertien can be shown to be wrong and hence

Brunner's criticism validated. Brunner in tum may be geing tH far in

calling Bart.h 1 S general approach natural theology • Af'ter all, the basia

is always held to be l:Ulblical • 4t any rate, that is a secondary matter

to the one bel ore us, and it would not be helpful to begin a discussion

of natural theology in a Barth- Brunner contraversy • The reader will knew

that this subject is not without emotion in the writings of these tlf~

theelogians 1 Once begun such a discussion would ge on at ver" great

length. Moreover, what Brunner rea~y meana when he accuses Barth ot

engaging in natura! theologizing is that his doctrine of election is

~criptural. and this especial~ when he speaks of Jesus as electing

God and e1ected man.

Brunner dees net deqr a basic role to Christ in electien. His

argunem. rather is that Barth in recovering a tremend~usl.y impertant em­

phasis - the role of Christ in election - has gene toc far in his in-

terpr0tation. His criticism, then, is aimed at restoring a preper balance.

He writes as foll.ws:

(1) See Barth' s brilliant treatment of this matter in his hapdling of the book b,y Loraine Beettner, Ih! Retenaed Doctrine ~. Predestination, 1932, p~36, PP.46- 48. . .

19

To the question: Who elects and who is elected? - each tiJIIe the answer is, Jesus Christ. New it cannot be denied tbat. Jesus Christ &8

the Sen .,t His Love, as the One upon whea the ~;JoV" , t.he'l!!!!!.­placittml' ot God, rests, is th~ Elect ot GGd and t.bat, en the other hand as the One who Himselt caUs His am tG) Hims~, Be la t.he One who elects. But, above ail, the flD'ldamental idea in this viev la tbat. 100 apeak ot Election means to speak .t Jesus Christ, in entlre banIoD7 vith the \dtness .t the Scriptures.

And yet we cannot accept this view: that the Subject of the Bt.ernal election is Jesus Christ. Wherethe New Testament apeaks of the eternal electien ot the faithtul in Christ Jesus, the SubJect et Election is selely, and without exce.ption, God, just as the Subject of Creation solely, and without e.xception, is God. Jesus Christ 18 the Hediator et Election, as He is the Hediator ot Creation. l!! ma. tb.r!ugb Hi1Il, but net !?z Hlm we are elect, as the world has been created iD 1Ua, throU8h Him, and unto Him, but net by Him • (1)

We turn nov to consider Barthls argœent iD the li&ht of

Brunner l s criticism. As l lD'lderstand it, the general approach of his

reasoning is as t:ollows. A basic idea is that predest.inatlon aeans not

only " • • • God' selection ot man • • • but of Bimselt n (p.). To miss

this statement made on the ver,y tirst page of Cbapter VII la to overlook

a concept that ls campletely essential tor an understanding.of his doctrine.

If predestination reters to God's decision to act in a certain w~, then

what is the basis ot that decision ? The answer ls f01B1d in Christ. How

do we know ? The answer is that a theological. exegeaia of the Bible provides

us nth ev1dence. A passage, vith praminence DOt ~ in Barth's doctrine

ot election but in bis theology as a whole is John 1.1-3. He reasons that

Jesus ls the Logos and that deity is ascribed to the logos. If this is the

case th en Jesus must be involved in election. Indeed, .ore, for he writes

that Il ••• electing consists in this Word "(p.lOO). Barth's fascination

(1) Emil Brunner, !2.~.,pp.)13-3l4.

20

with these verses, in John is partly to be explained by the connection

between the concept Il Word Il and the concept Il election," for election (1)

after all is a type of ' calling.' Then, too, these verses seem to

be the high point in New Testament Christology. In a sense, they constitute

the end, the culmination, of Christology. But ,if that is so, then they also

form the beg1nn1ng. tater we shall see that this is the l22.Y! for Barth' s

particular theory of Jesus Christ as the etemally existing God-man. This

theory Brunner also assails. It i8 important not ~ for its relevance to

trinitarian theologr but also as an essential part of Barth' s concept that.

Jesus is also the elected man. Barth' s argument then turns to a general

appeal to a host of verses in the New Testament which speak in lofty terms

of Christ. For instance, if He is Il ••• the first-born of every oreature, Il

and if ' in aU things he must have Il the pre-eminence, Il and if He is .. the

beginning, the first-born from the dead II then, .. • • • if that ls true,

••. t.in the name and person of Jesus Christ we are called upon to recognize

the Word of God, the de cree of God, and the election of God Il (p.99). We

must 'racognize the Word as God' selection (p. 99). Jesus Christ is Il •

the election of God befora which and without which and beside which God

cannot make any other choices " (p. 94).

It can and should be admitted that Jesus Christ is active in

• •

election. One can support 4-Jus notion easily fran an understanding of the

unit y that exists within the Trinity. This part17 expla1ne Bartih's

(1) l owe this thought to J.K.S.Reid, Il The Office of Christ in Pre­destination,'" The Scottish Journal of Theology,( Article in two parts), Vol~e r,-1948, p.178. -

2l

attent,ion to John 1.1-3 (p. 96 ). But exactly the same reasODing can

therefore 'be applied to the Ho~ Spirit as Barth admits: Il It is also

true that He does not e1ect a10ne, but in camp~ with the e1ecting

Father and the Holy Spirit" (p. 105). In this sense there 18 no need

to dispute Barthls thesis. BUt,of course, Barth goes beyond this assertion.

He is arudous, t~ a void dri ving any sort of wedge between God 1 S decisiOn

and Jesus l e1ection. That ls, there ls no hidden decree, because Jesus

himself is God t S decree, and we search in vain for any other will of God

tllan that revealed in the Word. Barbh is driven by a certain 10gic that

he finds irresistib1e. If Jesus is Godls Word, then he is"Godls communication

with manldnd (p.97). If that is so, tp~n there iSDO' other communication,

no other will. But how then, do we ensure that there is no other will ?

We do so by seeing in Jesus the e1ecting God: " If Jesus Christ is only'

e1ected and not a1so and prinarily'the Elector, what shal1 were~ know

at aIl of a divine e1ecting and our election ? " (p.105). The assertion

that Il ••• Jesus Christ is e1ec~ed man, can be understood only in the

light ofit Il (p. 103). That is,we must first see Christ as electing God

and then see h1m as e1ected man. But what scriptural evidence have we

that Jesus is electing God other than this general sense of the unit Y we

find within the Trinit yi In answer, Barth replies that we must see

Christ as e1ecting God in John 13.18; 15.16, 19.These verses must be in-, (1)

terpreted in their strictest sense. These verses assume special importance

in his argument since they are the only ones which make outright reference

in all of the Bible to Christls electing. Elsewhere bis case must rest on

inference. The question, however, is how widely the se verses are to be

(1) Barthls argument is on p.106 and following: in the 1ight of John 3.35, 6.65, 14.1, 15.5, 17.21 the e1ecting of the disciples by Jesus must be seen as" an:act of divine aovereig1'lt.y." aeference ia alaomade to. Matthew 11.27, and 16. 17,as well.as other brile.1I which bear on . Christie authority.

22

interpreted, do they refer to the election of the aposto1ate a!one or

to aIl Christians ? John 13.18 reads: Il l speak not of you aU: l knaw

whOlll l have chosen: but that the Scripture mq be f'u1fl11ed, He that

eateth bread with me hath Uttett up his hee1 against me. " John 15.16

reBAis : " Ye have not chosen me, but l have chosen you, and ordained you

that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain:

that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he mq give it you."

Verse 19 of the same chapter is " If ye were cL the world, the world would

love his own: but becauae ye are not of the wor1d, but l have chosen you

out of the . world, therefore the world hateth you. 1I Barth interprets these

verses in the light of the maqy statements in John which attest to Jesus'

unique nature ( e.g. John 5.26; 15.5; 17.1-5; etc.). He writes: " In the

light of these passages the electing of the disciples ascribed to Jesus

must be understood not merely as a function undertaken by Him in an in-

strllllenta! and representative capacity, but rather as an act Qf divine

sovereignty in which there is seen in ~ particular ~ the prima! and

basic decision of God which is also that of Jesus Christ" (p. 106).

In sharp contrast to this interpretation we have that of

Berkouwer that ;" nIt has been remarked a!ready that Barth' s appea!

to Scripture for his doctrine of Christ as subject of election ls

limited almost wholly to a few passages in the Gospel of John which

speak of Christ' s ca1ling and election of the apostolate," and " • • •

we : must insist that these passages in John which stress election b,y (1)

Christ are precisely those which present his mique caU to the apostolate. 1I

Let us now examine the verses in question.

(1) G.C.Berkouwer, Divine Election, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1960, pp.157-l58.

•

œjheÙ'}j:~ nl1Dèèi:ztihè-iJi"*'taWplriilS Lto',s1àb.~~ ,·:t;ke"~1I.e8

to rigoroUB exege81.,~ is mandat ory tbat we consult at least some

of the leading students of The Gospel According to Saint John.

J.H.BernardJ writing for the esteemed International

Critical CommentaryJ CODDnents. on the word T'V"'!' in John 1.3.18

as follows:

'1 know ~ ~ 2! men whom l chose J ' sc. when selecting the Twelve out of a larger company of disciples .-rl)

His CODDnent on John 15.16 is:

• • • the apostles were henceforth His chosen friendsJ and he rein was encouragement for them who were so soon to take up their mission in the absence of their Master. (2)

His observation on the word i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,I4."1/ of the same

verse is:

•••• rit] is usedas here to mark the moment when the apostles were s8lected fram the larger body of disciples. (.3)

A distinguished contemporary scholar~ C.K.BarrettJ

writes on John 1.3.18 as follows: " ' ~. ., , c: \, ~ ,

• • • the meaning of these words (1.>:"" O"fJfIl TlVP t. l' '1.~ } "'Jo!.., ~ ,and their connection with the follow1ng sentence are not clear~ They may mean (a) l know whom l have really chosen and of course' l have not really chosen Judas; or (b) l know ( thecharacter of) those whom l have chosen. (4)

On John 15.16 he writes:

In the gospel narratives, however • • • Jesus chooses , ca11st and, appoints bis disciples. The initiative is entirely his; the t.k~_ is emphatic. (5)

This same observation is made witl'l re8ard to

John 15.19. (6)

(1) J .H.BernardJ ~ Gosàe1 According ~~. JohnJ ICC, Ectl,nburghJ T. and T. Clark, 192 , p.467 •

(2) ibid., p.488. (3) ibid., p.488. (4) ë."ir."Barrett, !.h! Gospel According ~ §i. JohnJLondonJ S •. P.C.K.,

1962, p • .370. (5) ibid.,p • .398. (6) ibid.,p.400.

•

R.H.Lightfoot sees reference in. John 13.1e,19 to Jesus'-

choice of Judas:

If the se verses are considered along with 2.24,25, 6.64,70, st. John's teacbing seems clear that, when Judas was chosen as one of the twelve, the Lord was aware what the result would be. He now reveals that the reason for his choice was the fulfilment of Scripture • • • • (1) .

John Marsh of Mansfield College, Oxford, cames clQsest .

tolBirth:·',s--i.dèa. He interpref,s John 13.18 in the following way:

Inevitably a difficult verse; it is not easy for ordinary men to penetrate into the area where the incarnate Word shares in the omniscience, the Omnipotence and the a11-inclusive providence of Gad as he works out the salvation of a11 men. But the issues must be stated. The words can mean either that Jesus has chosen Judas • • • or that Jesus has not rea1ly chosen Judas, as he has chosen the other eleven • • • • tO the present writer it se~s more s~t­able to the whole context of John's thought to suppose that the former meaning is intended. (2)

This is Wideried considerably in bis canment on John 15.

16 :

This makes it plain for those at the Last Supper and for every generation of disciples since f that, however much things.may­appear, and even feel, to the contrar.Y, it is Christ who has chosen them to be disciples, not they themselves. The initiative in Christian life is with the Lord. (3)

Of these four commentators only one even comell close

to supporting Barthls interpretation of these verses. The context

and ",apo8\OJ;eà(jl. (,U • Even Principal Mar~h' s remarks should only be

taken to support Barth in the most cautious of manners. We are not

(1) R.H.Lightfoot, ~. John's Gospel, Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1956, p.27~ .•

(2) John Marsh, Saint John, London, The Pelican Gospel Commentaries, 1968, p.49l.

(3) ~.,p.526 •

now contending tbat Christ is IlOt act~ve in election. Nor can it be

denied that èlection is in biœ. The issue before us is whether or not

Christ is the subject of elect.ion in the unique senae whicb Barth

describes.

Bmb '.15 :exegee1s~~ Johll offera special difticulties. It is

evident that his own mind is ateeped in this Gospel and probablyit,

25

more than anything else, has infiuençed bis theolo87 of election. Perhaps

that in itselt is a clue, for it is the IIlOSt reflective of the Gospels

and at the same tae !DOst theological. Bach GOspel writer bas his om !

point of view. But no Gospel is shaped to quite such an ext.ent by the [

writer's l1leditation on bistory ~ th1s one. Clement of Alexandria , an

ancient cClllDlentator to be sure, wrote: .. Last of aU, John, p~rceiving that

the ext.ernal facts had been made plain in the Gospels, being urged by' bis

friends ~(\i)SPi~d by the Spirit, composed' & apirit~ ( iflellJl&tikon)

Gospel. Il For this reason, it could perbaps be argued that the passages . . . ...

dealing with Jesus' conversation with the disciples in th~ upper roolll is

not an bistorical r.ecord but theological reflection on soma events of the , t " . -' . . .'

dvs preeeding the crucifixion. If that is the case )sane sort of ~r.\.ef

could be Dl~e for interpreting John theologically and in th~ spirit of

his am writing. AlI the lat est G9spel it, perhapB, lft?uld have the widest

understanc\ing of the word .. disciple" and would therefore allow lt 11l0re

e&sily to have a broad reference. Wben one adds to thisthe truly unique

portrait of tbe Çbrist that is fOl1~d in the rest of John the stage ia

indeed s~t for the dramatic .entr,r of Barth's interpretation. '1 ..

Bût th1s e~ges:Ull&i:k8 proo~d.~ St.hHLJohail~e_·V8rses·oO\Ult..r it, . ~ . . . (2)

and._hedlextie. discU8sed are 1I08t ~ubtful in ·théir support'ot"BartIi.' ~'". '.

(1) R. V .G.Tasker, St. John, 't9Ddo~, The Tyndale Press, 1960, p.24. (2) See Jo~ 6.37,44, 14.28,31. . .

26

The other verses to which Barth directs our attention do

indeed speak of Christ in the loftiest terms, but they do not say that

Jesus i8 electing God. Among these verses are Colossians 1.15, 18; 2.20;

and 1 Corinthians 15.20, 2 Corinthians 4.4. These and aU of the verses

upon which Barth constructs his interpretation could be quoted and Jet

the decisi ve statement of Christ as elector would be missing. We would

be left with an argument that has logical force to it, but which is none­

theless also debatable~. An example of this sort of reasoning is the

following:

And how can even the Word of God give us assurance on this point. if this Word, if Jesus Christ , is not reall~ the electing God, not the election itself, not our election, but only an elec~ed means whereby the electing God - electing elsewbere and in sane other way - executes that which He has decreed, conceming those whClll He has -- elsewhere, and in sane other way - elect,ed? The tact that Calvin in particular not onl,y' did net answer but did not even perceive this question is the decisive objection which we have te bring ag~nst his whole doctrine of predestination •••• AU the dubious features of Calvin's doctrine Nsult from the basic tailing that in the last ~sis he separates GOd and Jesus Christ, thinking that what ws in the beginning with God must be sought elsewhere than in Jesus Christ. (p.lll).

But. even this docs not force one ta conclude that Barth' s

position is correct. Why can it not be said that God's will is the election

of Christ ( as in fact the Scriptures assert) and that this provides us

with all the assurance against a ~ ~ absconditus who produces

hidden decrees for man's damnation? Has Barth real~ shown aqy necessity

for going beyond this conclusion which is 150 amply supported by the Bible ?

Does bis view lead to a type, 01' Christo-monism that so identifies God wi th

Christ that no f'reedom is ascribed to God apart fran Christ ? ls the freedom

01' Gad, then, in question? B,tore we inquire into these and related questions

let us examine the most critical vers~ in Barthls case and one which even

Brurmer terms " ••• the locus classicus 01' the ••• doctrine 01' election," (1) ~

fïhesi&nS 1.4. ' ~

•

As we have already DOted' m.'"ObaPtel! One.Karl Barth lqs great

stress on a particular interpretation of Ephesians 1.4. While this

is the focus of his theor,y of Christ as the e1ected man, reference

should also be made to Ephesians 1.9, and to 2 Timothy 1.,9. Barth's

reasoning is that if Christ is only the axecutor of God's dearee then

we are not elect in Christ but onlY for Christ (p.1l2). His ,interpre­

tation of Ephesians 1.4 is that we are elect in ~is person,in ~is

will and in his own divine choice (p.117). He writes:

For where can Jesus Christ derive the authority and power to be the Lord and Head of others, and how can these be elect 'in Rim' and how can they see their own eleètion in Rim the first of the elect and how can they find in His election the assurance of their own if He ie only the object of election and not the Subject, if He is only an elect creature and not primarilY and supremelY the e1ecting Creator ? ObviouslY in a strict and eerious sense we can never say of an;y creature that other creatures are elect 'in it l, that it is their Lord arid Head, and that in its election they can and should have assurance of their own • • • • Thus the second assertion (that Christ ie elected man] reste on the first, and for the sake of the second the first ought never to be denied or passed over (p.116).

Jesus Christ, then, is not merely one of the elect but ~ elect of God. From the ver,y beginning ( from etemity itself) as elected man He does not stand alongside the rest of the elect, but before and above them as

the One who is originally and properlJr the elect. From the ver,y begin-ning ( from eternity it~elf) there are not Qther e1ect together with or apart fran Him, but as Eph.l.4 tells us, only lin' Hlm. ',In' Him does not simplY mean with: Him, together with Him, in His company. Nor does it mean only through Hlm, by means of that whichHe as e1ected man can be and do for them. ' In Hlm' meane in His person, in His will,in His own divine choice, in the basic decision of God which He fulfils over against every man •••• And so they are elect 1 in Him', in and with His own election •••• But it must be sud further that his election is the original all-inc1usive election •••• For tbis reason we must now learn reallY to recognize in Him not only the electirlg God but also elected man (pp. 116-117). .

Thus while the concept Il in Him Il relates to' both

factors -- Christ as electing and elected -- it refers supremelY to

him as elected man •

•

We must now inquire into the exact mean:i.ng of the , )"

phrase 1: V ~u T 'f • In p&rticular, we must ask U' the aearlng that

Barth gives to this phrase is also the meaning tbat is tG he found in

the New Testament. Again, the question before us bas to do with Barth' s

interpretation of the Bible.

We would do well to quote the t 11ft) chier verses in

Ephesians which provide the focus for Barth's ca.nent. In referring

to these verses, we should be reminded that the concept of being ~1n

Christ" OCClU8 ( WithvariatiOD8). some thirty t.imes in the epistle.

Ch~st is both electing God and elected.Man.

"In Him" is obviously a metapbor. But. 1dlat precisel3'

does it mean, and how literally are we to takB it? C.H.Dodd orrers

the rollowing helprul interpreta~ion:

In Christ ( a phrase which govern~ the 'wb91.e of this passage, and, indeed, in sane sort the whole Epistle)is an apreaaiOD apparent:q coined by Paul on the model or the cOliiDol) ~re8aioJl 'in the Spirit'. The underlying metaphor is"derived tr0llL8~ëe-ïrelatiàns: Obdat 18 thought or as the encompassing atmo~Pherè ( as it vere) of the true lire or the Christian community ,( which,. acce,rd:iJ;Ig ~to anotber' meta­phor, is bis 'body'). It st~nds rf)r"th~ i~~ tbat":hristiansa~',in such inconceivably' intimate s,pi~:t~ual relatio .• v.!~ tbeir LOrd ••• that he may be regarded as in some 'sort an 'inclusive personality' •.• (1) .

(1) C.H.Dodd,IIEphesians," ~ Al?J.n&don Bible Cœpnpt;.ary, New York, The Abingdon Press, 1929, p.1226.

• •

•

29

This certainly seems like a fair interpretation ~f

the passage. There is of course doubt that ~hesians is Pauline, but j.is

if it is then we have here one more, of many,?striking metaphors of

the relation of Christ to the believer. It is probable that none is

more dramatic or far-reaching than this one which represents Christ

as an inclusive personality. It may weIl be that this sort of relation

between a spiritual leader and his followers is unique in th!, history

of world religions. Clearly, Christ is seen as having a very special

status. He is seen in kphesians in his coamic dimensions. He is the

" coamic Christ." But nevertheless we must recall that in spite of ""'e. unique portrait being presented of Christ he is still not spoken of

as the subject of election. God is the subject and Christ is the means r' '7 .. X"..- ... of election • We are e1ect ri' II< .l, coll T~ & T D 1). Both of the

verses quoted provide a clear subject and a c1ear objecte In neither

case is Christ seen as subjec.t. As Brunner remarks)in all cases in

Scripture where the subject of election i8 clearlJr and unequivocally

expressed that subject is God. That this distinction is maintained

in precisely that passage that most clearly delineates ( along, ad­

mittedly, with several other passages, e.g. John 1.1-2 and Co1Qssians

1) Christ's coamic dimensions should give one special pa~e before

accepting Barth t s interpretation. Here again we might raise the

question of her.meneutics. Once more we must insist that while the

context of any passage is the who1e Bible '·nenethèlüsJtbd:s Un is

to be 3ubordinated to the immediate context of the passage under dis-

cussion. One must not approach this passage with one's mind made up •

•

30

~ -The ~ench ." acholar. :hHèDm. Bouillard) in&Qla1owled.8tng., ~" .

the contribution that Barth has made àl1aoaqUMt.ions.:t;.be-~ont.jo.i,eraial

nature of bis main thesis: .. Qu'il soit le sujet de l'~lection c'est (1)

beaucoup net... As we have done, he cites Brunner sqing that " le

sujet en est toujours exclusivement Dieu" and comnents according~

on Ephesians 1.3-5 : " Ici, comme ailleurs, le Christ appar~t me­(2)

diateur et non sujet de l'élection ~ternelle." He &lso poses two

... ' questions by way of argument with Barth: .. Puisque, d' apres l'Evan-

gile de Jean, le Christ, Verbe incarné, est un avec le Père, ne s'en-...

suit-il pas qu'il pas qu'il est aussi, avec le Pere et le Saint- Es-

prit, le Dieu qui éJ±t " and II M~s suit-il de li qlJ,e: l'on pUisse

/' attribuer au Fils ou au Verbe l'acte de la predestination, que le ... (3)

Nouveau Testa.'!lent attribue au Pere ?" In answer to this last ques-

tion we can only reiterate that the evidence of t he New Testament

seems strongly to indicate that Barth goes well beyond the meaning

of II in Hlm " in verses such as Ephesians 1.4. Perhaps there is a

certain logic to his approach. But earlier he had objected to the

application of human logic to the Scriptures with regard to the

Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. How then c~n a pro­

cedure that is found wanting in an earlier matter now be used without

contradiction? Biblical evidence seemsto be lacking for his theory

both that Christ is subject and object of election. Even an appeal

to Luke 9.35 yields no further support: nothing is said here about

Jesus being the onlY elect man.

«1» B.er~,BOuill&rd,Karl Barth,D; Aubier, Edition~ Montaigne,1957, p.153 • 2 !!2!!!., p.l,3. -

(3) ~., p.153.

.31

This brings us to the second main tenet ot Barth's doctrine,

that Jesus ia e1ected man. This concept ia criticized by Brwmer al.o:

The aecond JUin article ot bis doctrine is thus upress,td: J.eaus Christ ia the only Elect Man. In order to develop this point turther he has to maleea tbird statement: '. Jesus the eternal.ly Eléct Marl ' (p.ll1), , the pre-existing God~an, who, as such, is the etarnal ground ot aU election' (p.1l9).

No special pro~t is required to show that theB:1,ble contâin,s no sucp doctrine, nor thatno the ory of this ldnd ha~ ever been tomulat~d by any the010gian. It the eternal pre-existence of the God-Han wera a ta,ct, then the IDcarnatiàn would no loriger' be an Event at al1:oo longer would tt be the gr..eat ~racle ot Cl)ris1imas. In the New Testament the new elem.ont is the tact that the etern&l. Son ot ~ becae Man, and that hencetorth through His Resurrection and Ascension, in Hlm humanity bas received a ahare in the heave~ gl017; yet inthis view ot Barlh's, an this ls now anticipated, as it vare, torn out of the sphere ot bisto", and set within thepre-tem.poral. st*ere, in the pre-existence ot th~: LogQs. The results of this n~ truth would be extraord1.n&l7; tortunately', Barth does not attempt to de duc'. 'them~the idea of the pr.e-ex1ateŒ :.Pt~e IhInaDitl is an ~ ~ artiticialtheory ot the th~ological thiri ,r, who can onl7 carry tbrough his argment tbat the Han J~sus is the Only Elect Humcm being by means of this theory. (1) .. ..

'lvo other scholars, A.D.i.Polman, and Colin Brown express ,. (2) . .

agr~ement with B~er 's criticism.

J.~.S. Reid, hovaver, expressea a theory very similar to Barth'. . (.31

in an article in the Scottish JoWal ~ T~e0101l.Indeed, there c~ be

little douPt that his artiC'le ( in two parts) . is meant largely to be an

introduction to B~h's doctrine ot election tor the English.8peaking world.

It is ot added ~1;;erest that bis article i8 the very tirst one in the tiret

issue ot th~t iW-port~t journal. Also in e88enti~ agreement with Barth

is another Sriti,sh scho1ar, Herbert Hartwell, who has wntten a most thoughttu1

book on Barth'~ ,theolog. He writes &s toll~8:

(1) ~l BruIuler, Il!!. <;hri:tlan Doctrine 9! God, ~.s!l., p • .347. (2) A.D.R.Polman, Barth, P ., T~e Pree. and Retormed Pllblishing Co.,

1960, p • .38, and Colin Brown, ~ ~h ~ t~Chri.tiar1 'Klseag., London:, The Tyndale Press, 1967, p.UO.

(.3) J.K.S.Reid,; ge.~., p.lSO.

32

Paradoxical as tbis statement may appear, seeing that the Godman Jesus Christ did not come into being until the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, it make. sense if ve take into aècount Bartih 's .teacbing that in the etemal election of God befo~ time, Jesus Christ, and in and with Him man, :Lé. the tirst, that is,the primar,y object and content ot the princip&! and basic will of God, andthat the Old an4 the Nev Testaments testif)r to tbia Jesus Christ either in expectation or recollection. (1)

Quite a difterent interpretation is offered br Henri Bouillard

Who is of t he opinion that Brunner himsel:-f ia mis~aken in his ~er.tand.ing

of Barth:

Brunner d'clare qU'avec cette these l'~carnation n'est plus un '~naœe~t dans l'histoire. En r'alit', il l' a là une m'pr.ise. Barth ne supprime P4S l'twnement 'historique de J'sus; il affirme son pr~supposi ftemel. Ce que pr'existe ftemellement à l'histoire c'est le Ver.b1JD. incarnand1JD., sujet et objet~d8 l"lection, et non le VerblD incarnatum, qui n'en est que l'objet dans le d'cret divin. (2) . .

- The ,tact of tbis disagreement 8IIIOng interpreters of Barth

pointa, l belleve, to a certain lack of clarit1' in Barth's p:resentation.

His intention is cqstal clear. Just as hec vas DlOst iritent that no vedge

be driven between Gcxi's will an~ God'a will in Jesus Cl1rist ( thus maldng

roam for the qreaded hidden decree), .0 nov he is equallY concerned that

no vedge be driven betveen Jesus as the Logos and Je.us as the Logos to

be incame.te in Jesus of Nazareth. From. an etemit1' it vas the will of

God that the Logos' be the one who has to be incarnate. There, is no other

will of God beMnd tbis will. Jesus Christ., God' s b~sic decisian in

favour of D18Jl, is .election: " In its simple st and most comprehensive fom J. . , f. ,

the dogœa of P~edestinatian cons1st,s, then, in the assertion.that the

divine predestination is the election of Jesus Christ " (p.1Ql). Thus is be ; ~, 1

the elect man and ve are el,ect in him: " In the predestinaticnof .·the man

(l)Her~rt Hartvell, 1!!!. Theology gl. !!!:!~, London; puc:kworth and Co. Ltd., 1964, p.1OO.

(2) Henri BoUillard, sœ • .si., p. 154.

.3.3

Jesus we see what predestinatiorY-s alwqs and everpp,,,re- the acceptance

and reception of man only bythe free\, grace of God Il (p.ll8). , ,

Barthls logic, then , appears to involve a meditation on the

Jijurue Il in Rim." This, along with ather Icriptural evidenc" ( much of

wh1ch is open to debate) leads hiœ to see 4esus as the ele~t,man. We are

elect in him because He tirst of aU ia elected, a Di ,because predestinaSi1QD , '.

pr1mariq- refera to God 1 S electiqn ot himselt., llli 0r.<ier to be the only ! '

elect one. there, must be a isënae '.in which he is the eternalIr elect man,

the Ood.~. But we must ask :U" it is really necesaary to go beyond the

assertion that ,he is the God-man !!! intention? Indeed, in essence, 1s

this not ail Barth ia saying ? It ia very, &trange that though there is

evidence that h~ does speak of the e ternally existing God-man that concept

as ',.such remains sanewhat in the background. Brunner himselt observes tbat

Barth does not draw the conclusions fran bis theqry that m1ght be drawn.

Barth 1 s theory of the ete~alq elect man, the God-uaan, Jesus1

is found in scattered pas.agt},sâin connection wi th the doctrine of election

in Church Dogmatics II;~2, IV,~, and IV;2. 111s exegesis of John 1.1-2

has pl&y'ed a role of special prout1nen.ce in this theo17: '" ,..

But; again, thestate~nt in Jn.l.2 : Il the same (o"roJ' 1~ ) was in the belinning vith God Il would bê a m.eaningle.ss repetition of the second statement in J~.l if :1;t ~re not an antic1pation of the incarnate Logos att~W . ~d declared by John the Baptiat in the words : Il this vas he ( 06 TH 11 11 ) who comin~ alter me is preterred 'Detore me, for he wu before me· Il ( .".,.:;T'" 'pou ",v ). The result i8 that we cannat possibly reter abstractly to the etemal Logos • • • • 1 '(1)"' :

Thus it can be said that Il At no level or t1me can we have to do

with Qod without having also to do with this man Il (2). '. So also Il The

true humani ty of Jesus Christ, as the humanity of the S~n, vas and is am

(1) Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics,IV,2, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1958, p • .3.3.

(2) Karl Barth, ~.,p • .3.3.

34

will be the primar,y content of God's election of graee, i.e.,ot the

divine decision and action which are not preced~ b.r any higher apart , ' ,,(1)

from the trinitar~~ happening of the lite ot God. • • • ~ '\",.. •

But ,perhaps Yo1l11H1d I~l of the Dopatlc., better expresses

bis thoughts:, ,

J;f it" ia true that God bec8IIle man, then in this we have to r,cogniae and res.pect His ete mal will and P"lr.~pose and resolve • • • and behind vbich we cannot go, behind which we .. 90 not haveto reckon with any. Son of God in Himaelt, with any )t.0tOJ ~~"rlcos witp any other Word of God than that ~ch, was made tlefth. According to the free and IfracioUfl, wUl ot God the etemàl. Son of God is Jes:us Christ, as He lived anddied and roae ~gain in time and.none other. ca>

A few pages la.ter Bartl1 q.comes even more explicit:

In this free ,a.ct o,f the election of grace the Son of the Fat~~ is ,DO 1~ j,uet the et,em&1 1;.ogos, but, a s' 'suéh, as very God fran all et'erm.t::r.. Be il 8180 the, ~ry God and véry man'He will ~cane in time. lrithe divine

act of p~eltination there prè~~xi.sts 1;he Jesus Cbris,t }fho 'as the Son of the ete~ F~ther and the ch1:1d o! the Virgin Mary' ~ll,bec,ane and be the Mediator of the covenant between God and man, the,Onè who accœplishes the act of ato~~e~., '(3) , ,

. The"arguments that we,f1nd in Iblœe ~,.a are e~senti&l.q as

~bove," although':lt should be"added that Bimih also offe~s, f~ther exe,aeat.s

~t scÏ"ipt~al passages wbich he 'corisidersto be relevant (p.99) ~ ,

Whate~r \, our' reaetion t.o Barth's theory 'lfe must not aUov , '

ourselves to overloolç the fact 1;hat he is recovering for the church -:' ,,~ ..

a meaningtul exsgesis of the concept n in Him." It will be,come evident .~ . .

that he has gon~ too far in hi~ iI)j;erpretation and that it is more thao . ' ,

doubtful that scriP:tural support can be found for the extreme theo17 of

Jesus Christ as t'he eternal God-man. But nonetheless it must be said

most clearly that the Bible does t,ach us that our election is n in Hia.-

35

Wbatever else this means it teaches us that we are elect because ot

hila. An analogy m&y' well be drawn traD the legal world ot estates

and wills. A man dies and leaves in his will a large S1lll tor his son.

But suppose that the son, in t~· is married and has children. 1t is not

at aU nscessar,y that thel' be mentioned in the will ( presuming a normal

marri age and norma:l parental relations) tor the children to receive the

full benetit of the estate. Thel' are Il in him Il - in their tather, so to

spaak. They are Il elected Il to wealth simply by baing children ot t.heir

tather. So, apparently, there ia scriptural support tor the idea that we

are elect Il in Il Christ, and that h~ ia the elect ot the Fat.her. This,

however, doea not .mean that it is wrong, theretore, to speak.ot our election.

Indeed, the Bible clearll' does spaak ot this election. The phrase. Il in Him"

however,. ia anattempt to make clear and distinct the ground ot the pre­

destination: the grace ot God in Jesus Christ ·and notb1ng elee, ,

But in order to carry through the l,?gic or this conception

Barth believes that it is necessary to show thàt the Logos was determ1ned

to be the Logos sarkos tran eternitl'. All that Barth needs to. in8iaj;' upon

lit .. " tbis determination, this intention, this Verbum incarnandum •. 1 do not i. . t

see that Barth has demonstrated &ny' necessitl' tor the theor;y .. ot Verbum

incarnat1lll. Likewise the scriptural proot he claims to tind tor the theor;y

is insutticieDt to erect such a maj.or editice ot theology. His chiet argllllent

auggeats .tut t~ .... Jobn. 1.2 has ~ reterence torward to the. incarnate

Christ and not baclcwa.rd ta John 1.1, the Word etemal1y existing.But two

veI7 important ar~ents can be brought against this interpretation. 1p the

tirst place, it j,s not at all unreasonable tor the author to be engaging

in the literary device of emphasis through repetition. Cerliainly this

occurs trequently enoU8h in the Bible to be familiar and especially is

this the case in the Psalms. One need not demonstrate that tlU,s is part

ot the author' s prose style tor the simple reason that what he is asserli1ng

in John 1.1 does bear emphasis. The second argument is that it is strange

tbatlso important a doctrine is not made more expl.icit in the,. rem~~.·

chapters of the Gospel. To be sure ve read oC the gl017 wh1ch our Lord

bad with the F,ther before the foundation of the world ( John 17.5,24). t '.,

But ,those verses cannot be taken as pro~f of the explicit theo17 Barth

is presenting for they do not p~etend to be answering the questions to

whiah his theory is the anSlffJr • Alao, they leave open the question of

"wbat kind of gl017 did Jesus have before the foundation of the world ?"

, _ It must be admitted that Barth is making a most imporliant

and penetrating point in attempting to ensure that ve do not conc~ive of

the Logos ~ abstracto • Just as his argument against the hidden decree is

almost classic in its utterance - any future statement. of such a doctrine

must talce account of his reasoning -- so now does ,he deepen our understanding

of the person of Christ and of the way in which we must conceive of him.

This section is marked by a creative flow of ideas many of which ar.e breath­

taking in their. brilliance and indeed in their àaring. However there is

a certain lack of system in Barlih 1 s theology which we shall bave to comnent

on later and which parlily explains the presence of the concept · .. of the etemal

God~ but which neverliheless does not p~ the role it might have,had it

been further developed.

This section also helps us to understand wh;}" and how Barlih can

37

consider himselt to be within the BetOl'llec:ltradition. In the Pretace

he writes ot. bis regret at having had to depart tram Calvin as much

as he had. Yet witbin the Cha~r he makesit clear that he 1s still

8ssentialq w:l.tbin the Reto~!i 'trad1tion. How can' this be in a doctrine

which rejects double predestinatio~ and which anunciates a new theor,y (1) ,

ot Jesus as elector and. elected ? ~be answer has to do, with the. I50vereignty

of g race and w1.th\t.he retusa! to have 8I)1thing to do with s,ynergifllll •

80th of these within bis doctrine are related directly to t he matter under . .' .. .

discussion. If election is pr:lJaarily the predestination ot G9d, .th~ what

~OID ls there for the: merit ot man ? If the object of election ls Jesus

then what r~ ls there for t~e go~clness of man ? If we are elec!-, in 11im,

elect, only bf:t~ause he is the elect one, then .. there ls no room. what~ver tor 1, .!- . '

the co-operation ot m.anf.n bis election. Thus do we tind at the ver.v heart

of bis 1nterpre~ation the most Calvinist ot doctrines, the gracio~sness of

God understood as in Jesus Christ:

The tact that God ma~e8 this movement, the institution of the covenant, the pr1lJlal declsion 'in Jesus Christ' which is the 'basis and gpal of aU His works - that is gr~e •••• Tbis love of Gad is His grace ••• (PP.9-l0). ,

Before we leave this question of Brunner's criticism ot Barth's

understanding of Jesus as elect ~ ( a criticism which we have s~en to

be in the main aecurate) 1"b would do.' to remind ourselws ot the broader

reterences tba1:-. ,are possible to the" in " concepts in the Nr - " -in Christ,"

"in Him," andperhaps also the" bodyll metaphor as applied ta. the,. ehureh.

To be sur.e we are eleet in Christ. : But the :oneept ot Il in,Christ l' is

(1) On pages 60- 76 Barth argues that this concept of election in Christ is not a new one. He suecessfully points to antecedents in the Re­foriii&tion perlod but still admits that the concept' vas not developed sutticiently.

wider than that ot election, as basic as that ia. An excellent recent

study ot thia question ia tound in 11!!. Pb.ncmenon 2! !d!!. !!!' Testament , . (l) .

by' Prot. C.F.D.Moule of Cambridge University. Theb\u:den of Prot.

:'./ Moula's discussion has to do with the precise meaning ot the word ....

in the phrase "in Christ... As might. be ilIagined the word Iv ia

38

.• ed in a v~etyot ways in the New Testament" but the one which caneems

us is the ot incorporation and this is ginn special attention

in a chapter enti,t"led " Tbe Corporate Chris~." Prot. Moule writes:,

Examples ot this ineorpor.tive use a~ the tollowing. First thera are sucb p~ases as ' tho.e who $1"e in Christ Jesus" e.g. Romans 8.1 •••• Still more decisive ià the parallel in 1 Corinthians lS.2fbetween being , in A~am' - that i8., incorporated in humanit1'" part of· th. h~ race - and b,eing , i:n Chr1at·. Fin~ -to go' no further - there .. is, P~lippian8 3 .8t., where Paul says that his ambition is. to be tound in Christ( lv~,··· ' 1~~~8~ i~",,;rf -'tinding lD1'aelt iricqrporate in him' -RiF. (2) .

The personal language consistent17 used disallo~s t~ thought . . (3)

ot this lBing some sort of' phy'sical in~orporation. Christ rath~r is

seen as an incorporating ti~, an inelusi va figure" much l1ke l'lis t~tle

Son of Han which is a ~uman. tigure s1Jllb0lizing Il the martyr-group Qf 101'al . (4)

Jews eoming through persecution and vindi.cated b1' Go~.n If this is a

correct ~d,erst~ding" it the Son' t?t Man concept does elUQidate the " in

Christ" concept." "then it is seen that Jesus interpre~ed his mission in . (5) .

tenns ot corporate activit1'. . We are then in Christ in tbe sense that Off ' • • 1.. .

we take par1; iJ:1 his corpora1;e mis~1.on to manldnd, and that w1tb 'iP,Jn ve

fom a nev h~tY'. This does not Mean that we arenot elected in him.

~at it does m~~lis that our conception of his inclusive nat~ is broadened.

(1) C.F .n.Moule" !h!. PhenClllenon !2l .Y!! ~ Testament. London, SOM" 1967. (2) C.F.D.Moule, !e~êit., pp.23-24. (3) C.F.D,.Ko~e, ge.clt., p.27. (4) C.F.D.Moule" 2e.~., p.34. (~),~.J p.'34.

.39

Thus tar 118 baYa beeD P.I"obiDg Barth' a cent.ral theail.s in the

light ot Brunner's cr1.t~"tbat. it is upacript.ural. While. ve h~ve nOt

attempt;ed to assess all. of Ba.rth'a aeg.~a, ve have tried to arrive at

crucial to carrying the bUl'deD ot tbis tbeor;y. Our cOnc:lueion thus tar ia

to accept B~er',a opialon that Barth' a theo17 lacks suf'\ticient biblical

toundation. However, the positive el.mat in our asaessm~mt needa to be

atresaed quite as auch, for iD the Yeri process ot stating a 'view t~t

Most readers would tind utr.e Barth 1a recovering important b1blical

el_ents o~ the doctrine or electiœ tor the church. Chiet ot theae ia

the notion ot electiœ iD Cbrist aod the conaeq'\lent critiqUe ot the. ~dden

~.cree that~ occUra Weil œe cCJlll:;aplates tbi~ ~11-et. He has lfl"itten that.

tMs is bis chief critici_ ot Ca1.rin, that in the last analysis he s~ates

God and Christ. Lilœvise, tb:I.S juncture must be seen as the ~arti~ qt

the w~s tor B~h rra. the traditional Reto~ed doctrine ot prede_tination.

The substitution of Jesus ChrJ.A for the bidden deCl'8e he claims is the

decisi ve amendment to the Ca1.riDist doctrine ot election: " It anables us

~or the tirst t1me to show and to ~8T that we cm real!:7 believe in the

çiivine election " (p.161). Barlier he hadqubted Milton who had written: . ~ t .. ,.., •

" l m~ go to hell, but ~h a God ( as that ot the Cal~stic ~eaching)

':'ill never CODllland JIIT respect. • (p.U). In thia regard Milton had spd~~n

tor a host ot Christian peap1e who round the Calvinist doctrine --scriptural . .

or unacriptural -1.UlbelieYable. Pursuing this line ot reason1ng Barth

has claimed that election 18 Gospel (p.I.3). It ia good newa. It is evangel.

Far trom causing a shadow lIDIler lddch people must labour in tear, it i.

40

the assurance that God 1 S grace bas come to us in Jesus Christ. First

and for_ost election is " The Election of Grace " - as the title to

section 32 states. Election ia part of the doctrine of Gad, and proceeds

fram the freedom of GcJl. Thus in election we are given assurance of the

nature of Gad himselt, that God does not will to be God without man.

Thus doss Barth present us vith a doctrine ~ch in so maD7 wqs has the

fom of Reformed··doctrine ( ldth its emphasis on God's sovereignty-) but;

which comes . indeed, as is its intention, as good news, as a breath et fresh

air blowing throU8h the stutf'y' rooms of traditional Reformed; interpretations

of predestination. A1l of these are positive acc~pliShœe~tswhich must

be gratefully- aclmowledged even though vs do not accept bis thought that

Jesus is electing Gad and the sole elect,man.

Before we leave this discussion of Barth's central thesis

there are two other observations which Brunner makes and which should

be cited. The first has to do with the freedom of God. This question

relates most directly- to the question ofwhetber or not Barth is a

uni ver sali st • This we shall consider in a separate chapter and along ldth (1)

it God's freedcm or othervise to choose outside of Chr:bt. Brunner thinks

that Barth has so limi ted the freedam of God that his doctrine inevitablY'

leads to universalisme The second observation has to do wit~ an oft-repeated

jutlgment of, Barth, namely' that he frequently' can be accusedof wbat m~ be

termed Christom~.:,... Brunner also raises this in connection vith his

accusation of universal1sm, but the matter might, as well, be raised here.

A!ter al1 the central thesis does bave to do with the pr:1macy- of Christ.

We have g1 ven reasons for stating tbat Barth 1 s judgment is extreme • Can

his view in this regard a1so be termed Christ-Monism?

(1) For Brunner 1 s coounent see The Christian Doctrine 2! God, .sœ.ill., p.314.

41

Brunner writes as tollows:

Here a mistaken aaphasis upon , Christ alane 1 has led to a ' solution 1

which is no.less dangerous th84 the opposit~ vie.v which it desi~s to rule out. It is the S8IU erroneo1l8f Christ~oniSlll *~c~ ~ have met already in the doctrine ~ the Trinityj the absolute equation 'ot God and Christ, b,y means ot which the Son, trcm being theHedi~tor ot Creation becanes the Creator, which leads necess_ril7 to 'the vi.w that the O)on is the Subject ot the eternal Election, and in so doing the idea ot Judgment 1s ignored and the possibility ot heing tinal.ly' lost is elimiriated. (1) ..

'Brunner's vords are echoed in Polmanls remarks:

Barth immediately posits the toundation ot aU ot bis mtire dogmat.ics: Eveqthing which §2g !!I! about Himselt !!'!!! êl! ve .b!!! ~ .!!Z ~ God, !! anchored ~ ~ !!!!!!.Lot Jesus Christ .. With'1rbrist .!!' ~ .~ ~ !i!!!. him !.! ~ !ml !!!!! outsidè 2l. !!!!! there is !!2..~ gl. lmowledge about ~. This positlon 18 usual.ly called bis Chr1stanomstic p$cijüe ( Christ aloDe) or incamational principle ( therestrict.1on. ~ revelation to the incamation, the becœd.ng nesh).. And it ls this Qa.1c principle that gOftrnB Barth 's view ot p"destination • • • • What .... er :;ül'r;;. :~- ·cblnle Barth ~ains tru..., to bis basic Chr1stcmoriisttc poslti.on anQ. he ~del& ev~ry doctrine according to tbis basic conviction • • • • Barth does !lOt "'~ caretulJ.y and painstald.nglJr aU Bi~lica1. data resp8cting pre~.tination in order to draw a conclusion. AU data is trom the start set Wlder bis Christaaonistic scheme. (2) . . ..

we have here a major accusation not onl7 ot Barthls doctrine ot

election but ~so ot bis theology as a whole. Involved in this is the

hemeneutical question which ve dealt vith brietl1' at the .tart of this

chapter. Certainly on &rJ7 reading ot . ~:I Doeatics the impr~ssion ot

the centr~ty ot Jesus Ch~st dominates. That this is so in pred~8tinat~qn

is, by now, sureq obvious. But there is a reductiomst tendençy i~ bis

theolo81' which tends to see every doctrine through Jesus. Chr~st. His doctrine

ot the scriptures tinds its focus in Jesus Christ who is the ,Worq. of God.

Indeed, what he means by revelatiori!! Jesus Christ. His doctrine of creation

is grounded on an understanding of the covenan:t which in t Ul'IJl is centre,don

Christ. Witbin the covenant is the election of God ( through C~st) and

(1) Emil B~er, ~., p.315. (2) A.D.R.Pollllan, Barth, 22.sll., pp.32-33.

aDd tbe ca=md ot God. Even bis doctrine ot man begina with retlection

on Chr.lst as the ide&! man. ot course, we are not. surprised that bis

.baJ.V::~ treatasJt or the doctrine ot reconciliation centres on C~rist as

1IÙ1. !bere ls re&son tor believing that Bart.h is the ID.Ost Chl'is1i-i:oDScioua

theol.ogl.an who ever lived. While it is nothing short of marvellous how . ,.'

ill-matiDg tbis .. approach can be, 7et it do_s uke one suspicious that

in l'set wbat va have operating here is a questionable hermen_utical,

pr1ncipl.e.

When Barth was on his tour ot North America a few"78ars ago . , .

a questiao period .W&s held a t Prineeton Theologieal Semin&l7. at whieh

tiAe a studeat aslœd him ... :about·.~ this matter. In re"ponse to the questio~

Barth gave a definition ot ChrietCllllOni8lll whieh .e-., to eonfuse the issue:

n Christcwmi_ would Dl8an that Christ alone isreal and that al.l other men (1)

are aol7 ~t17 real • • • ." Clear13, he rejeets the notiC?n that

bis tbealogr· is Christomoniatie: " Sound theology eannot be eUber dualistie

or .aaist.ic. The ~spel de.ties all t i8lll8' including dualiSD1 and monisme

Soœd tbeolog can on13 be ' unionistie t uniting Gad and man; Christoaioni8111.

( tbat· s an old catchvbr.~ ! ) vas invented b7 an old .tdend. of mine who._

n.a 1 1dll DOt. mention. • • • • Chr1stanonism is excluded b7 the verr·meaning (2r

and goal. 01' God's and man's union in Jesus ~hri$.", .

lie hav~ here a .jor misunderstanding, .tor Brurmer detines

Cbristo-IIœ1_ quite different17 than does Barth. Brunner an? Po~ are

~ot sa.JiDg tbat Barth a~sert. one .. ,,,"9.;1,, realit7, that of Je~ Christ.

Rather tbq cla:1a an arrogation ot God's role b7 Christ ~d,the":eon •• quent

(1) Iar1 Barth, fi A Theologieal Dialogue," Theoloq Todar. V.19, 1902 .. 631 p.172. (2) Iar1 Barth, ~., p.172.

43

pressure ot this understanding in biblical interpretation. Perhaps

Brunner, in his t1ll'Jl is ext.rm.e in spealdng of. the" abaolute equation

ot God and Christ.,," but. in a sOll8what looser sense Barth certain17 can

be accuaed ot Christamoni8lll in hi~ doctrine of election. Wbat else is

it ~.:5 when he: is spok~ ot as electing God and the 0!1l7 elect JI8D ? It . that i8 not ChristcmoniSlll, it would be ditticult to mov to 1f)lat on. II1ght

ascribe the word. Brunner's point is precisely' that vith which va have dealt:

God is the s.ubject of election and Christ the mediator. Barth in claiming

that Christ.is. the SUbject and obj~ct ot election is being untrue to

the Bible.

But tlrl:s question also relates to hermeneutica. In a much

earlier writing Brwmer had charged Barth with Il. a one-sided, concept

ot revelation, Il and had stated: n He acknowledges only' the act, the . (1)

event ot revelation, but never ~hiDg revealed • • • • .. Brunner

suggests another approach:

But that is only' one side of the biblical eoncept. ot revela:t.ion: the other side is its verr opposite. It is the tact that Gad speaks to me hen and now becauae he l!!!. spoken. • •.• the Bible is the ' tact ot revelatioo' ot God. It 1s true that the Scriptures becCllle the Word ot Gad tor me only' through the Holy' Spirit. But!:!!!z becCIIle the Word ot Gad for me and they beccme it becauae they already' !Œ it.(2)

Here then is a direct as sault on Barthian interpretation.

These aev.eral_questions, ot Chr1stClllOnisœ, ot rovelation, ot he~eneutics

are ail related onea. It Christamonisœ were a valid approach -- if one

could reduce doctrine eventually to Christology and arrogate to Christ

the role of God -- then undoubtedlY revelation would be as Barth under-

(1) Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural TheoloBl' London, Geoffrey Bles, 1946,· pp.48-49.

(2) &dl Brunner, !!:!!!!., p.49.

44 ,", .

stands it, and his hermeneuticë would also b4J inantable. Much of t~8

beCOllles then a matter of on. 1 s precise conception of the Trin! t7. For our

purposes, however, the problem relates to Christls role in election and

Christomoniam as a principle of biblical interpretation.

Christ is considered by Barth as Godls sole revelation. This,

of course,has been opposed b7 Brunner who,on the otber hand,must never (1)

be .een as a defender of a sort of eas7-go1ng type of natura! theology • . ' . - (2)

But 1D8Il7 other c.ritics have had m1sg1v1ngs about bis views as we~.

In p&rticular thi~ great eurphasis on the Word ot Gad leading to a

type of Christological. interpretatio.n of the .' B:l.ble. reaults in speClllation

which cannot reall1 be tested exegeticall1:

It was but a short step to the conclusion that the New. Testament is onl.T a relative statement of the word of God. It vas not until Barthls cOlllllenta17

(1)

,(2)

Bmil Brunner, !!!!!. m Revolt,~ndon, Lutte~rth, 1962 ( first published inl939), English transe b7 Qlive Wyon, p.527, writes: Il ••• l am Dl7seltpart17 to blame for the curious fact that to-d81' m&ny' people regard me as. the chf!Ullpion o~ 1 natural theology' in th~. usual .. ense of the word, although actual1y l hold. the diam.tricall1 opposite view. 1I

Carl E. Braaten, in H1ston !eS. Hermeneutics, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1966, p~14j vrites: ." Jesus 'Christ is • • • • in Barth 1 s theology the sole revelation of Gad • • • • We have . aeveral serious reservations about the christamonistic idea of rewiation. A fair attentioo to the Biblic8].· evidence will' show, in the tirst place, that J.àus Chri8t is 'not the sole. ~dium 0.1 r.ve1ation and, in the second place, that much more than revelation· was acccmplished b7 him." He adds (p.1S) that "JesuS Christ i8 the sole 'Savior., not the sole. reveale.r." He also quotes Wolfhart Pannenllerg: Il Both theological questiollS, that of p~eh1storicit7 ~d that of the .8upra-historical. ground.ot faith, have aôcOGDJlon extra-theological motive. 'Their cODlllon starting- BPint is to be seeR in thefact that ~ritical-~storical inveStigation: &8 the sciènti;f1c verification of.vents did" Dot . seem to leave'&nT roœa : tor red..~i ve .vents. Th~refore the theoiogy of red_pt:1ve histo17 ned jirito a harbor suppoledl1-aafe from the crit1cal flood-ti41e, the harbQrof supra-histo", -"Or 'with Barth,' of preh1story." (p.28, quo~ed fram Il Redemj)tive Event and ~st017,IIEa6ZfS .2!! ~ Test_ent Hermeneutics, C. Westermann, ed., John Knox'"Press, 19 ).

45 on Romans thatthe, forc~ of the diacover;y' began to be f'elt; if' the ten ia a human word and therefore hiatoric~ conditionecl" it ia not the text that ia the word of' God" but the text itaelt ia aJ.read7. the ~ pretation of the Word of God. Bal'th! a methodology" as he deacribea lt in t11e Preface of the aec.ond e dition of the R&aerbrief'. ia to live with the text until lt diaappeara and one 1.a contronted 1d~1l- the divine word it$elt ••••. If lt is Gad'a Word that is the object of ~getical endeavours" the process ia at a dead end" for this word is not accessible to the exegete.as anobject for scrut~. (1)

: There .are therefore aubstantial. grounds for agreeing wi th Brunner thatBarth la engag~ in speculation in his dect-i'd.ne:el.'ëlectlœ and in the interpretation of the Bil?le ~hat fonas the backgl"9und to bis vieu. The decisive criticism of his hemeneutics is sta~ed above: in aubordi.r)atiDg the word of God to the Word of Gad Barth in. effect entera an area whereit is impossible to aettle a dispute, for the:ground of his theor;r isrefiection on the 'Bible and not· the Bible itaelf. This i8 what Brwmer. meant when he ~ccused Barth of engaging in ",natur~

theology~ Il There. are so~ reasons then, for believing that Barth haa yielded to what might vell be termed ChrlatClllOnism in bis doctrine of elect.1on . . (2) and that this same principle bas had a tremendoUB effect on hia he.l'Dleneutica.

(1) .Robert W. FUkÙC,'Lanf:age. H.rmeneutic. !el!e.œ ~ God. New York" Hal"J?8r and Row, 196;p.ll (2) 1 WoJùd ~~~r &1so to the obllervation made b7 Arnold. Come in &1 Intrqiuc,tion ~ Barth' ail Drmaticsn !2t fr.achara. Philadelphia" The West"ï;itiister Press; 19 3" '1'- 133: Il AU ot the critiques 'that have been levelled against the Dogeatics lead in one w~ or another to the general. charge tbat he has reduc.ed aU theology to Chriatology.n

CHAPl'!R THREE

DOES KARL BAIll'H' S VI»l OF ELEC~IOH LEAD TOUHIVERSALISK ?

In the last chapter we referred to the fact that Barth reBarded the substitution of Jesus C~ist for the decretum absolutlDll as the keT alterati.n ta the Calvinist UDderatanding of election (p.l~).There is a positive side to that, namel1' that we are elect in Christ. The neg.t~ve side, however, takes an unexpected twist. It is that reprobation has alae been b4trne b7 Christ ( pages l61. and following ). This is. Barthl' s inter­pretation of double predestination, and it would appear ·to be a conception which has ~ intent uactly opposite to Calvin's. If Calvin'.s doctrine weuld lead some to despair ~d put the matter of predestination uoder the ahadow of the hidden decree, ane wanders if Barth's dectrine has net the

(1) opposite effect. Does this mean uni verlaliam ? If Christ bas borne our rejectiGn, then on wbat possible grounds could one conceive of an)" further rejection? Barth att.pts to deal. with tb1s so~ of question in the fourth part of bis. presentation, and especial~ in the last section ot. that part, If The Determination of the Rejected."

CertainlT maDT of his utterances sound like universal.ia. We read tbat fi In defiance of God and to his own de~truction, he [man]

D:l81' indeed beh .. : and conduct himself as isolated man, and therefore as the man rejected by God Il (p.316). But the most this individual mq do ls to If repNsent" this man. He cannot be this man fi • • • for in Jesus Christ . -God has ascribed this to Him~elf • • • and. taken i t away trom man Il (pp.316-

(1) Universalism. is the theo17 that aU will be savad.

47 317). Man, theretore, Il ••• cannot reverae or change the ete mal

decision of a.d b.r which He regards, considers, and wills, man Dot in bis isolation over against H1m, but in Bts S~ Jesus" (p • .3l7). T~e att_pt to live the lite ot one rejected by God is an " objective 1JIl­

possibil,it7 Il (p • .346). j-Bqtfhr! aSArts that the· elect are " • •• ob­v:l.ous17 to be tound in the sphere ot the dinne election ot grace • • • • But the ~ther. are also to be tound there ft (p • .346). Even if a man acts as though h~ we~ rejec~ed he could n~ bring down uPon himselt &gain Il. the snrd ot ~'swrath now tbat it has tall-an" (p • .349).

Do not' tlieee t a'iàt8lÏeatà; le~ one to assume that Barth is a UDiversalist? Ap~ntl.Y 7es - it one were to judge trcm Barth's critics. ..... But ~arth himselt does not drav this concluston • He varns .g~at the doctrine ot the .aPlutaetuis (p.U7). But then he proceeds

. . to varn against adenial. ot this doctrine· CP. 422). His position is to • r ~ •

de tend the hedom. ot God in electien: " It belongs to God Himselt to d.­term:l,ne &:nd to know what it m~ans tbat God was rec.nciling the world to Mimaelt ( 2 CeriDtQi,ans 5.19) " (p.419). W)latever :else.:tscsaid.~lt:·mu8t be understood thatBarth htmselt denies universalisa.

Exactly this same position cm beseen in sane of bis other writings • In bis discussion ot " The Doctrine ot Creation" Barth al ..

reminds us Gt the election ot Jesus Christ. Agaip. he strikes. the dam1nant note ot tri\1lllph th4t sOUJ.lds through bis writinas:" lie are torbidden t. ~ (1) take si+ore seriously t~ grace, or even as serious1,y as grac~;" "If God bas elected any other lII&Il to Himaelt in spite ot his sin, He. has done s. primaril7 and originally because He etemal.l.T elected th:Ls man, and in and with Him tbis other as a memèer ot the bodT ot wbich Jesus ie the (2) ... . HeadJ" " A SUlB ot the whole message of the New Testament mU' ve17 well be tound in the question ot Romans 8 • .31: 1 It God be tor us, ~o can he (3) .. afainst us ? I,! . . ( ) Karl ~h, œC.~i DtS!tlcs,II:t"2, Bdinburgh, T.and. T. Clark, 1960, p.4l. (2) Karl Barth, d.,i.. (.3) E~l Barth, ibid., p. 213 • . " . -- ... ~ -

In an even more recent writ1ng, t!!! HUIIl&Dit;z; !! God, Barth pointedl.y' deal.s with the question ot his "univeraaI.;sm..n He

writea:

Does this mean universaliam? I wish here to malte only tbrèe short observations, in which one is to det~ct no poaition tor or against that which passe ... lmong us under that terme 1. One shoUld not aurrender h1mselt in 8117 case to the panic-which this word seema to spread ab~~" betore intoming himselt exact~ concering its peasibile senae er non-senae. 2. One should at least be atlllulated by the passage Coloasiap. 1.19, which t.dm1 ttedl.y states tbat GGd has dete~ined through His ~ _ as. His image and" as .. the ti,rst-bern ot t.he who:le Creation 'to -recODcile aU things (r.c. 71.c~ 7'01. )- 1;0 hilllselt,' te consider waether the concept could not perbaps'-have a gooci Dleaning. The same can be sa1d of parallel passages. , 3. One question should tor a mom~t be asked, in view of the 'danger' with wbich one May see this concept gradu&l1y aurrounded. What of the 'danger' 01 the etérnally-skeptical-crit1cal theologian 'who 1~ ever and again suspicious17 questioning, becauae tundameDt~ alw~8, legali&tlc and theretore in the main meroaely gloolQ' '1 la not his presence 811008 us currently more threatening than that ot the unbecamill8l1' che.rfui. inditterentlsm or .ven antinlllliardSlll to which one w1th a certain under­stadning ot univel'sali8lll could infact deli~r h1mselt?' This Dluch is certain, tbat we have no theological right to set -any sort ot limita to th, loring-ldndneaa ot Geel which has appear.d in -Jesua Christ. Our thealogicsl dut y ls to see and underatand it asbeing st.ill greater than we had seen betore. (1)

Agaip, this ls talce the aame position as the one tound in Deeatics Il,'2,: the det.nce ot the tl'eed_ ot Ged.

-: la this, however, a correct understanding ot Barth? Brunoer, 1

in the strongeat ot tenDs, attacka Barth's doctrine at this_point ter two reasons. In_the tirst place he asserts that th1s interpret.ation re.ult.

. (2) in the denial. of the -rreedom et God, and this denia! entails universalism. 1 - --

In the .econd p4ce he cla1m.s tbat Barth goes n DlUch fUt,her" than " (3) - -uni ver.aU~ • .What B1"WUler me~ ole that - no theologian w' .

(1) Karl Ba~b, ~ Humanity !!.. Gckl. R:1chlllond, Vlrginia, Jo~ Knox Press, 1963~ pp.6l~ -(2) Emil BI'1lDl:lel', -!h! Christian Doctrine 2l God, ~.~., p.314. (3) Emil B~.r, ~., p.348.

49

been quite ~ explicit in maint~Ding that ft • • • through Jet1Q8

Ohrist, '~ believers and unbelievers, are sand trom ~he vralih of Geel '" (1) .

and participate in redemption through Ohrist." In se st.at;1ng his

case Barth is going against ecclo.iaatical tradition and n the claar . (2)

tO$ChingGt the New Testament. U let agp.in the question bec.es tbat which .

ot the reading ot the Bible, the very ground uponftB~h him~lt cheoaea

to build his tbeological house.

In gathering Brunner's criticisms we might also reter to an

article which he wrote in the Scottish Joum!l' 2! Theoloq entitled 1

" ObservationlS en Karl Barth' s 'Dectrine ot M~'." Two .bse~tiGllS

in particular m&y', be quoted here. The ,tirst has to do wi th a, qllt[tstion

ot Barth' s style. ,'or instance, perhaps ,the follOwing. ia a .pet1al exp1 BD­

ation of· . 'the:w~ion >, in &Dswering the question:.it ha. ia:.a, ua1wraa11st:

Il Again and. &ge,in, it has occ~ed to me that '70~ uœerstand Barth beat

when ~u ta,k~ ~ Dot so much as a 87stema.tic theolo~an but, as 018 1iIlo

has tiret me insight and t.heDE. 8I1other': Whichh~ putsintowordaaa ~ , (3)

cane withou,t. worr;ying whether they tit cl08e11' together in a systeaa.-

He,then accuses B~rth ot turthering universalisa: , l ' .

Above aU tbis ~gument resumes a line of themaht tram the dQCtrine of slection to the effect ,thatin Ohrist aU men, believérs er, unbelievera, ~ elected 8n~ cannot be lost. 'Tlïis doé~ne that even at that at;age ôccasioneci sÇlP.e misgivinga ie now deve1oped;to a point which Jl8kes 118 look a'\i it even mOre aekance. In brief, because eyery man in 'V4.rtue .r bis creation is in Ohriét~ 'everj-Oriè has theretore a s~re illthe 'n­demptionwhether he believes o~ ~~, ever;yone is ' a member ot the Bod7

(1) limil Bz,mne~, ,iBid." p • .348. (2) l!bd.l Brunn.r,~., p~.349~ t3) Emil Brunn,ér, " Observaticmsoil Karl Barth's ' D.~trine ot Man' • iD

the Scottish Joumal 2! Theology, IV, 1951, p.l24.'·

'i

(1) ot the He&d'.

so

,Ife then adde. a cCIIIIIlent which should malee us even more caut:Lous in ~

our attElll~t to cOJllprehend exactly' what Barth is e~: . Il Suçh then

eeems to be the hidden unit y ot Barthian thought. And yét l do. not

venture to sq: Thisis what Barth Dl881'l8; l can on~ ask: ls this re~ (2) . .' '., .

what he aeans 1" .

~he chiet pro:bl.. that seElllS to emerge trom this briet survey " " ., . , ~ . . , .

• t Barth's an~r·.:to the question as to whether or not one 0ll8ht to hold

the doctrine ot the ap!katastasis .hae to do with. the stn.:t~e ot his

own doctt1ne. Th~t is, given his premi8es •• ught.he I»t t. be a thorough-. ,

going ~rersalist 1 !bat is wbat B~er is gettiil8 at. in. attacld.~g se : . (3) .

v~hamently' Barth'e ide' ot GodI~ treedan. It Jesus ia the ~ rejected " '. 1 <.!.,"

m&nI.Brunner claims, then aU man must he ,aved. Ther. is n. J;'OCII tor 8111'

turther rejection. He acknQwledges, tor instance, tbat Barth does deqy

the d.ctri~ ot the apekatastas1s, but is nenetheless. ·able to cite the . . .

sort .t eJâ.r-e ~ks which WB have quoted earlier • Ve bave then a . .. . (

1 9,uestion ot structure: prElll1ses that do n.n. seam to lead to ,bvious

• ~.. ; • '~.:' Il

conclusions.

This, .~ughly, is a~so the pesiti(ll taken by G.C.Berko~~r; wh.

quetes trom a lecture that Barth gave in Debreczen, Hunga17, shortll' .' '. "

alter the: second World Var in which Barth . ,aid: .. , We can be certain

that God'., 10rdShip is and will be t.t81 in aU, but what this signities ~ '. . .. ."

tor us we must leave to Ged. And theretore,'we dare not say that in the

univereal grace damnation is eliminated. The Ho~ Sc~Rtur"s spaak ot . '. .'

(1) Emil B~er, ibid., p. 134. (2) Emil arunner, ibid., p. 134. (3) Brunner assertsthat Barth's interpretation so binds God's Willto Christ

that God's treedan is denied. On th, c,ontrBc17, write~ Br)lIUl~r, " ••• God has treedam in Christ to e1ect, and outside ot Jesus toreject. But if Jesus Christ Rimselt becomes the Subject ot eternal Election then there is no divine treedom in Christto elect, s:lside 2! Christ to reject.,11 See p~ 314, !h! C~rrstian Dootrine g! ~. 9.2. Cit.

) .

51 (1)

election ~d rejection'." Because of this and: other etatementa

made b7 Barth, Berkouver arrives at the conclusion tbat we alao bave

reached n8llle17 tbat .. We are confroDted with the 1ndisputable fact · . . ' (2)

that Barth bas bimselt rejected the doctrine of the apokatastasis.n

Yet Berkouwer auau.r1zes bis investigation b7 saying tbat Il There 18 nG

alternative t. cencluding that Barth'a refuaal to accept the aeokatastasis

cannot be hanaonized with the fundamental structure of hisdoctrine of (3)' ,

election."

It cannet be denied tbat Barth' s lansuase i8 extreme, SO IIlUch

a. that cme can acarcely fault Brunner in raising the issus of God's i

treedlll1. In Barth' s t~eolo81' Gad 8eema to have t1ed himselt so IIlUch to j

Jesus Christ that 1t vould appear that He has no freedOlll outs1de of Christ.

Brunner's cancern at this po1nt 18 perhapa best expressed in the following · '

vorda:

This B1blical view, however 1s connected with the dia\;1nction bet.ween the works which the Father d~s in the Son and tho,,~ which He doe'~ in the 8phere which ia ciarmess and death, 'which thus h~ DG part or' l.t in the Son, who 1s ~ght, Life, Salvat1qn. Thus the ~ web of the true doct~ne o~ Election 1s inextr1cablY entangled vith the, correct doctrine 6t the_T~une God.(4) ,

In Brunner's estimate " the B1b11cal view .. to which 'he refers

1s a d1al~ct1cal tension betveen wr4th and mercy'. InterelitinBlT, his

conclusion als. ~ests on the ~eQom Gf Gld.

· New it ~st be clearl1 understood that Bart~ himself argues

almoat f1~rce17 for an ~derstanding of elect10n a8 coming from God'8

(1) G.C .BerkoUlfer, Dl! TriUfph !! Grace !!! the TheoloQ; ~ X!r! Barth, Grand~Rapida,l(lcbigan, W.B.Eerdmana, 19'6, p.l14. The quotatien 1s trem Barthls lecture Gottes Qladenwahl.

(2) G.c.Ber~,r, ibid., p.112. (3) G.C .Ber.wer~ 1bia., p.U6. (4) FlDil Brwmer~ I!!! Christ1an Doctrine ~ Gad, !e' ~., p.2.34.

j

52

~. Be states tbis in the .ost expllcit et te1'lll8 in the earUest

part ~ Cbapter VII of Doeatics II.;'2 :" Ged' ~ decisi4B1 in, Jesus

Christ la a gracious decis~on •••• In it He doe~ something which

lia bas 110 need to do, which He is not constrained to do "(p.9),

• ••• toile grace of God. is ù.elutely free.!eS there" divine" (p.19),

8IId • • .; • the. freeda ot God • •. • ü-8l His election ot BJ"àce " (p.24).

Bat perbaps a stat.ent in the. epen1ng part of Chapt.er VIII 1s .. st

illadDatoiDB: " I~eed He liesus Chrisi) lived out the freed. in w:hich

Gocltn. aU et.~ty has bound and tied Bimself fer His own sake for

ml" pod • (p.606).

Barth here seems to be admitting that God's freed. is now

l.bd..ted. but tba,t tbis 1s so because he bas ia. !!!! freede l.1mited

Id-sell. God DIIV" not, in Barth's system, have treeci_ to rej.ct people

outsl.clè .r Christ, but thi~ 1s 1tself a limitation Wich he bas .accepted

iD ~. But Brunner 1s saying more than tMs. He 1s sçing that on

blblic&l grounds one must see rejection of man as res1diDg in God's freedaœ

apart. t'n. Christ. For instance, the Bible never speaks of the wrath of

Cbrist but œ17 ef the wrath of Ged. He can be .. • • • other than the

a.e rewealed in Jesus Chi-ist as Light and Life, namely the Hidden Gad,

who as Rch oparates not in the Werd and 1ts light, but in that which is

Dot. • .. rd' or 1 Imwledge' in darlmess • • • the !œ!!! nudus , who des

nat ftil. IlillSeU in the form of the Sono! Man -the terrible Majesty, (1)

vbich is • intelerable to all creatien '."

(1) Bdl. lIrQImer, Il!! Christian Dect~e .2! God,.!2.~., p.232.

53

At this j\Ulcture we are enterin8 a diàpute that preperq "

belengs te an 8Xuaination of the dectr:i:ne ot the Trinity. Ht_ver, it

mq be observed-·th,.t Brumer himselt is, perhaps, on dangereus gro\Dlds

in bis critici8ll. It is evident that he is tr;ving te l?e te,ithtul te the

large detai:ls et the scriptural witness which point ( in his opinion) te

a dialectic leaVi.~ .unsettled the questien of :univer~ali8lll. But is ,the

ontèlogical ground et tbis dialectic trulT.as he 'bel1:~ves. the separatien 1 '.. .

et the Fatber t~ the Son, or as he understands it the tre~om of the . evidence

Father? The bibli~alAcited in the tootnM.os et the. passage whEtrein he .'

deals with tbis matter do net re&P7 car17 tho burden -r. bis conclusien. , .

It is true that the Bible ascribes wr~t.h to Ged alme, but it .is alse

true that jvd,gœant iscemmitted to the Son, as it is ~hat the Sen. utters

sCIlle tairq harsh nl'ds ( as, tor instanée, in several Gf the paraDles).

Thus if there is a tendency tor Barth tOAee a greater unit Y withtn the

Trinit Y th~ the cl&8sic doctrine has traditienal13 auew~, perhaps

Brunner in turn is permitting a gréater separatien • For the purpeses ot

this thesis the. questien ot w:hether or nM. Barth is untrue t. the biblical . " . , .

witness in b~ding the will ot the Father te the Sen and thua restricting . .

the treedCIID ot Gtld ~U have to be left an 'Pen one, te' be decided onq

iU the light of' an intensive investigation inte bis doctr:tne ot the Trinity.

·Bowever, lot ~ be Uaderstood thattbis- ". b1dugt.' 1tseU .reats .. in GOd'iJ

tre.edam. Brunner's observatien, then, ia a contentious one and itselt needs

assos-.nt. • ". '1

Even tlds matter ot God's treedom is ~al.lT backgrOWJd

( insotar'&8 the dectrine ot election ia concerned ) to .the charge that

structurally' Barth sheul.d be a uni versalist. Beth Brunner and Beruuwor ; -

54

clearly think. that he should. Hov shall tbis charge be answered ? ",' .

. TheN appear to be three pessible answ.ers ta tbis question in

detense et. Barth. The tint is s1mply that he doea not make as great a

virtue as CICIIle veul.d want out or cGnaistency. The seccmd - related

closely to the tirst - is the view that he believes in a sert ot

Il higher logic" ~ch surpasses human logic and thus does n.t. need to

drav the obvious cenclusion. The tbird questions the as sertie that

the premises real~ are as explicit as'SOllle b~eve. Perhaps.the S8IIle

8IIlbiguity pertains to them as was round in our examinatien ot the notien

ot the etemally msting Ged-man ?

The tirst answer is suggeated b,y Giov&l)Di Hiegge: Il One ,

should remember tirst Barth' s constant retusal. to Jield to the temptaticm . .

or systematic theught. Even in the Dogmatik bis thoughta. rema1n prophetie,

not speculative, altheugh at the cost ~r apparent contradictions, as tor (1)

example in the doctrine or predestination. Il . ". ..

The second and third answers are torvarded b,y Herbe~

Hartwell:

Legical17, this·latter pesition vould entail the doctrine or. the ap'kataàtaéis, the' t.~aching .t'uniTersal salvation. Bowever, 'l?fJlieviDg in a high~r di$e legic wch sunasses t~ legic ot' the rinite hUJDal? mind, Barth maintains in view ot the f'read_ of' the divine grace and on scriptural. gr~ds tbat the questien ef' whether or Dot ultimatel1' aU .en ~ll he s~Ved IIglBt rai.ain an open 4Hle. If th1~" i.s true, one might· WIlder ~:.:1n' that case he f'eels just.it~ed to spa_ ot ;,iJesU8 Ohrist as the enly rejected, and one might ask whe'ther we· ~aTe here, EiP~her eDlllple of' his peculiarm.ethod tir4lt tG make an unqualified statement and to qualify ii af'terw&rds. Ho_ver, as his teaching on ' The Deter­miution of' the Bejec.1;.ed' and on 1 The Perdition ot Han' "shows, the m.eaning of' the propesition ot Jesus ~Christ as the onl,yr.ejectEld ia the limited one that Jesus Cbri.t is the orily one who'tram. aUeternit)':, wàs

(1) Gio~ Mieae,"A Roman' Oatholic Interpretation or l{arl Barth," the Scot~ish Joumal. !! TheoloSl, 1954, p.54. '

ss intended to surfer the. penalty of death, whereas by bis vicuioua aacrificial death the wSiT to etemaJ. aal vation would be, and acta",' 1 y has been, opened to ~ men; in other words, the aina of the .latter, bec&11.8e°ot the fQrgl.v~eas of sina offered iD Jesus Christ, no longer neces.~fly and unavDidabl.y' reault in' rejection. Thua, fram eternity, God's will in Jesus Christ is directed towards the salvat10n al all men , in intention'; rejection cSnnot again become the portion of thoae who, tlaving

O

heard the caU of Jesua Christ, believe in Hm and thus, through taith in Him, become the children of G1:>d. (1)

The very least that we must allov is that verlral.l1' Barth is

inconsistent. Indeed, wa ha7·e already cited Brunner in thia regard •. Brwmer

believes that ° one . best understams Barth by knowing that this is bis style.

Attendant upon .this inconsistency is a certain 100se08ss of pbrasing. It

Barth means that Christ ia the o~ reject man in intention then wby does

he not sBiT 50 ? Bince he leavea open the question of lDliver,alism ia it

not mandatory to place this qualification upon bis " double predestination" ?

Perhaps, .&1so, Barth is govemed by a certain" bigher logic," but if he

is then we tind ourselves witbin the same circle ~s our diSCllssion of bis 1

hermeneutics: on wœ,.t basis doea one assess bis n b:1gher logic "? If one

cannot lIleasure bis interpretation of the Bible by normil,l exegeais, and if

one cann~t assess bis " higher logic" by logic, then does this not make an

end of all d~~ate~o? Yet, one IIlUSt tread very' caretull7 at tbis point. If

one can s'if ~t Barth is inconsistent, ma)" not the same be said of the

Bible ? ~,;.O aU, extrae stateiaents on both sides oi the question are

tound in I\~\r Writ. Yet ve speak ot the Bible's position as dialectical.

Cannot the same b. aaid of Barth's po,ition ? l believe it can.

(1) Herbert Hartve,ll, m.2i!., p.llO.

~ ... 1

S6

lftt IllU8t real.ize the great detail ot the tourth part

ot Chapter VII ot Do.tics II J 2. In ponde~1ng the determination ot

the rejec"t(ed he is also grappling with the JIOat ditticult ot all 'theo­

logical problems, the question ot evil. He 8ees bQththese question~

as being ~solved ~ a dialectical understanding or the relation between

God and bis creation. Thua, in apite ot Brumer's harsh and not UDtOWlded

criticisms, the rather &trange observation ,.,. be mac:ie that in t set they . !.. .

both bel1eve in the s_e . aiJ8~rs to the se questio~s: the treedam ot God

and the sOlution to the problem ot re~ection ld,1;hin the t ram~rk o~ a

dialectic.

Betore va consider the above turther, it should be

remarked that, Barth al80 has mather concem: tha-t ot steering a new

course between,,~anism and Calvinism and yet. remaining faithful to

the Retormed dedication to the grace ot God as sovareign in Jesus Christ.

Some readers .. ,be tempted not to t ake Barth's Il Calvini~1I seriously, ~

yet l am c::oDVinced tbat a tair reading ot Doseatics II,,'2 w111 lead one

to see that bis doctr1~ mus,t in l~ge part be underBtood in the light ot

Calvin' sconcern tor the sovereigpty ot, graee. One mq grs,!,p: the origin.aJ,. ,

gemus ot Barth' a vie" it one sees the debate in this conten. Barth' s .' ".

disdain tor ~anism is onlY' too evident both here ~ elaewhere ~ his (1) ,

dogmatics • Havins seen where AJ;m.n1an1811l has lead bistorically, and

. . (1) " There, can be no doubt., that the Remonstrant, were, in tact, the last

exponents ot an' UDd.erstanding ot the Reformation' which Era8lllus had orice r,presented ~ainst Luther an,d later Caistell10 &8a!nst C~lv1n,; àn: under­st~ding which éan and sho~ be interpret~d !ri theUght ot thE:! pêr­siàteilce ot .ediaeval sem1-Pelagianiem no les8 than in the Rer)a1s88.nc:e. And as the lut exponents ot th~t unde~tand.1ug theY'we~ alsothe tirst ,e~ent8 ot a mod,rn Chriatianity w.bich is cha.racteri,zed by the S8lll8 ambisu1.ty. The}" vere the tirst Ne,o-Proteetint,s Qt the Church ••• "

(p.67). '

57

J'et knowing also the shadow under w)dch the traditional Calv1nist interpretation has operated, whe~ thcln , does one go in a DlOdem atat .. ent of the doctrine of election? Barth 1 il 8Dawer has been to atq vithin the tramework of CalviD1a an9.;yet to 'reviae, the cClltent throush a Chriatological interpretation. of election ~ the decrees of God. His &tt_pt 11&7 well have led him into salle extreme atatem,«mts, but in the light ot wbat he was attempting the reault i.a brilliant. It 18 chiet13 valuable hovever, l.sain being a detensible atatemeut of the doctrine than . (1) in being a remarkable stimulus to our thinking.

Barth, tœn, ll81' well have been inconsistant in not drawing nol'll&l conclusions.' t'rca his premisea. But; it then needs to he asked: if he allows tor reprobation ( as he doss), then inwhat sense do the reprobate have a standing in the universe ? Does he malee &nT attem,pt to harmonize th1a vith his earUer statementa? It Jesus ia the rejected man, then in . what sense' are ot~rs rejected ? One JIIq use Barthls own vocabular,v and inquire into the Il, determ1nation" o~tbe rejected •

(1) See &lso the article by Joaeph D. Bettis, " la Karl Barth a 1Jnivera~at?" the Scottish,Journal g! Theolo&!', December, 1967. Bettis agre~a that Barth' ia not a univeraaliat: Il Barth'la i~tel;ltion is, clear: he rejects UD1veraaUsia beca~a,e the logic ot the universalist position is'based ClIl talae underatanding ot the goodness ot GOdls love. And Barth.iDt.e.nda to argue that" eternal reproPation can 'be a mdtestation ot Cod la love'! (pp.429 - 430 ). It should ~o he noted that~ttli agrèea that Barth'a remarks in the H'P?9itZ ~ ~ while appea~ng to go further t,owarcis' universali,811 esaenti&lly express the po~t10n in DOMics U,2. (p.427). Battis is also the CIle who points to ti)e tact tha.t 'Barth 1s attempting to tind MW options in the old q,ebate'between ArDû.n1an and. Cal~st (p.423 and p.426). '

58

Bart.h deals wi th this question in its .ost apecitic tom in

Section 34, part tour, JI The Determinatioo of the BejecteeS.n He begins

th1a part by asserting that " A lrejectecl' .aD 1& Olle who iaolates him­

selt Irca God by resisting bis electioll as it. bas taken place in Jesus

Christ" (p.449). Yet even this resiatiDg ls 1d.tbiD the will ot Gad:

JI The propositiontraa which we must stad la that in the determ1aation

ot the rejected we have to do with the will 01 God in vbat ia by detinition

a who~ ditte~t sense than in the deteraiœtiaa 01 the elect" (p.4SO). -.

He develops. this idea in the tollowing 1R9: • !he ODe vU1 ot God which

determines both is here the almigbtl', hoq" 8Dd cœpassiœate non.;.will ing

ot God. 110 e tema1. covenant of wrath COlT'8spœda 0Il the one s1de to the . .

external covenaQt of srace on the other ft (p.4SO). 'lIII1a the rejected

exist in the sphere ot God 1 S non-villing. !he rejected JII8I'l i8 the ODe who

is not villed by God (p.450). To uriderst;~ Barth's position on the qu,estion

of the dete~ation of the rejected œe I1118t grapple vith tbia ditticult

concept ot God 1 ~ 11O:ll-willing.

Barth ia careful to assert that the bel. ot the rejected ia

not an iÙdependent entitl'. It is. a .. heiDgv1thR (p.453).Tbat· is, it exists

onl7 in its relaticmship to the elect - to Christ, and to the man elected

in HiDl (p.453). It is a shadow exl.st~ce, ODe that • )'ields and diasolves • " • 1 ~~ •

and disaipatea " (p.453) •. And. yet,it ls dead17 ~01J8h and aerio~ enough

witbin the limita set it by God (p.453). The rejected have no tinal vaUdity

because 01 the very nature o~ their OppDaitiOil vbich ~sts 0JÙ1.' in relation.

~ndeed, the tact ot r~jection ~a~ to he s .. :iD the .l1ght ot Christ' s

act: he· has bome the rej~ct~on o~ the rejected.

59

Thedeterm.1Dation of· the rejected is also explained as a Q'Dlbol. The rejected one represents " ••• the world and th!' individual iD;8otar as they are in need of the divine electi.on" (p.455). He manifesta tbat which is denied and overccme b7 the Gospel: ..... the. ~rpoqe of the divine electionof grace is to grant to this man wbq in and of himaelf has no future, a future in covenant vith God. Il (p.457).

This leads Barth to a lengthT discourse œ Judas Iscariot,

" • • • the character in ."trl.ch the problem of the rejected 1& concentrated ~d developed in the New Test~ent ••• " (p.459). We have already referred to his exposition of the role· ot Juda& in Chapter OQe, and therefore ve do not propose to present Barth' & arguuent in detail. Ho_ver, the leading conclusions he draws involve the tact that the New Testament; gives. no deai8ion on Judas' ultimate fate (p.476). Thus in Judas ve tind the situation which involves " ••• the contrast between the irrealstlble divine grace of J.esus Christ and a hostilit)" of JI1lU1 towards this g race which humanly' spealdng ia iDmovable l ' (p.477). In a comment of special relevance to the questions vith vhich we are now dealing, he write&: This. contrast rl'JD&ins in the situation of proclaJ:u.tlon. Judas ls pl.aced ~n this contrast and it is in this contrast that the rejected will recog­nize himselt, andtbat ~eter lmew h11Ilselt to be in soUdant)" with Judas. This is the open contraat ot which the Church and ever.v memb~r ot the Church ~~~t thiQk when the question of \he tinal,rejecti9n olmen is raised. The Church will not preach an i;l.rroKocTet.t/P-r.t. ÇIJ. IJOr will it prea,ch a' powerl~ss grace ot Jesus Christ or a wickedne8S' ot lieD which is tao powertul tor it. But vithout weakening ot 'the contrast, and also vitho~ &Dy' arbitr&r1 duali8lll,. it will preach the overwhe1ming power ot grace. and the 'we~e8s of human wickeQnes~ in tace ot it. For th1s is .bow thè • to~ '. ot Jesus and. the, ' ag~st t ot Judas. undoubt'edl)" contront one anot,hta-.We mq not kn01!t~ether it led to the convt$rsion ot Judas or nQt, 'but this is how it alw&)"s is :Ln the situation ot proclaJaation. The rejected cannote.,C'~pe this situation and its 'relatioq ot opposites. He cannot "xt.ricate hiIIlSelt trcm this order. He will nece&saril)" confina it. and ev~n in his own vay be active in it. And in the New Testament this div:I,iJ.edetermination of the rejected :is Un8lllW,g,w;msly' cl~ even, and e,pec!ally' in the persan and act ot Judas (p.477).

.. , .. JI;f ""

60

Judas' act then can on~ be judged as sin and guilt. But even in

his guilt it Must be affil'llled that " ••• " 1 bis determination is ultimateq

positive" (p.504). Jud~s. one. of the twelve. and one to whan the concept

of election is applied. experiences the fact that bis election " • • • excels

and outshines and controls bis rejection ••• " (p.504). Indeed. Judas reminds

us of the Jewish rejection of Jesus : Il Judas. the TTt?'J'fIIJ(JD ,jeJ • in , bis concentrated attack upon Israel's Messiah does onq what the elect people

of Israel had alw8JS done tpwards its God, thus fina~ showing itself in its

totality to be the nation rejected by God Il (p.505).

In the closing paragraph Barth procla1m.s his bellef ~hat Gad. wills that

Il he t'OC) ft ( Judas ) should hear the Gospel and vith it the- pnIIlise of bis

election ( p.506). He reminds us again that Il ••• the rej:ee.ted as such has

no independent existence in the presence of God Il (p.506). His det~rmination

is Il ••• 10.0 hear and say that he is a rejected man elected If (p.506). Barth

then concludes: bis study' wi~h the following words:

He fthe rejecte41 is determined to hear and say that he: is a rejected man, elec'ted. This is what the elect of the New Testament are - rejected men elected in and fran their rejection, men in wbam Judas lived, but was 8180 slain as in the case of Paul. They are rejected who as Sllch a re SUIIIIlCZled to faith. They are rejected who on the basis of the election of Jesus Christ and looldng to the fact that He delivered Himsel! up for them "believe in their election '~.506).

61

It will have to be aàDitted that Section 34, part tour,

is a very ditticult ane indeed·.Bar!t;Jlis clear17 arguing tor the poasibilit;y

ot reprobatian,as the title of thispart. it8ë~ indicates. Jet in the very

process ot arguing tor'it, he is tr,ying to leav~ the question an open one.

His handUng ot the l'Ole ot Judas is idWl88S. to tbi,s. The contradictions . .

ot such a proce~, l belleve,. are more çparent. th~ real and must large~

be interpreted in the l1ght of the ditficw.t;y ot sketching the dialectical

tension inVQlved.

l;t is not, theretore, &Ccurate ~S8T t~at Barth l.saves no

room tor reprobation. l would draw a parallel b~tlfeen his discussion ot

reprobation. and. bis consideration ot nothingness in Church Do8ll!tica, L . . ..

IU,'3. The problem is not hav, o,n BarJ;hl.s premisn, one .... allow

roCla tor reprobatian. Rather, the pl"oblem in its JROst ba.sic tOl'Jll is how

cm .there be eviiL in the Wo~14 at &ll ? Another wa;y ~t stating this questio,n

is how c&;ll th~:~~ ~ not~gness in a World ot which God ia sovereign?·

Barthls treatmént .. ot nothingness 18 dit,(icult and. complexe He wrl;t;ea

that no~h~ss ls the' reallt;y agai;nst. which God ~elt villed

to become a creature. He goes so tar as to &ssert that Il The. true .: . .

nothingneas is that which brought Jesus Chriet to t h~ . crotJs and· that (1) , . . ... '. .

which deteated hia.n His discussion of nothingness, as i8 bis dew

ot predelt~ation, is Christocentric: " The objective ground' ot our (2) .

knowledge o~ nothingness ia Jesus Christ." Notbingness • "i," preciael;y . (3) . . '

in God la relatiCl'l~b.1p to i~. ~t. i8 :·"not. nothingl.!, It i8 Dot to be

(1) Karl B~h, Church DoR'Jll&tics, 111,3, ldinburgh, ~; &net T. Clark, . 1960, p.lOS.. '. ." .. (2) ICarlBartll" ib1i.' p.306. (3) Karl Barth, ~., p.349.

•

•

(1) equated with what is note It is an objective reality. It ia .. • • •

that fran which God separates Himselt and in face of which He &aaerts " (2)

Rimeelf and exerta His positive will. 11 Of special importance to our

consideration of election is this cOllllJlent: .. The ontic cantexl; in which

nothingness is real is that of God's activity as grounded in His election

of His activity as the Creator, as the Lord of His creatures, as the King

of the covenant between Hinaselt &rJd man which is the goal and purpose . (3)

of His creation. Il Thia thought is expanded in the following two

paragraphs: , ,

If the biblical cODCeption of the God whose activity is gro~ed in election and is therefore ho~, fades or diaappears, there will also fade ànct d1sappear the knowledge of nothingneas, for it wi;Ll necessarilt become pointl,ss. Nothingness ..,s no existence and cannet pe known except as the object of God' a a cti vi ty as alwqs a ho~ ac:t;i vi ~y. The biblical'conc""tion as we now recall it.." 1a as tollows., God electa, and t'herefore rejects what He does Dot Will. He aç's Yes, and therefore saya No to that which He does not aay Yee. He works according to His purpose, and in so doing rejects and diamisses all that g~s&JS it. Both of these activities grounded in Hia election and decision are neceesa17 elaments in His sovereign action. He is Lord both on the right band and on the lef~. (4)

It ls of' major importance that we do net becane lnvolve.d at this point in the logical dialectic that if God loves, elects, and af!irms eternal~, He must also hate and theré!ore reject and negate eternal~.' There is nothing to make God's activity on th~ left hand as necessary and perpetua! as His activity on the right. (S) ,

Just as Barth allows for this nothingness in lite and sees

the pro!ound questions it entails, so &lao doee he allow for ~eprobation. . ".' .. '. r

(1) ibid., pp.349-3S0. (2) ibid~, p.35l. (3) ~., p.35l. (4) ~., p.3Sl. (S) ~., p.36l.

,<

•. ' .' •• 1:

•

•

.. ,·.63 w:l.th it8 equally protound implication. Bût the point i~ tha:t; he views the whole matter tram a perspective which sees election as good news. Election is Gospel. So &180 is his view of. creat~on tor creation is " the ext.ernal basis ot the covenant"," and what i8 covenant

(1) it it i8 IlOt good news ? That ·which dominates Barth's thinldng is the Gospel -the trillllph ot grace. Hence he retufJes to see;.a parallel between election and reprobation. The last sentence quoted. troœthe section on n Nothingness Il bears repeating: " Thera is nothing .to make God's activity on the left band as necessary and perpetual as His activity on the right." .....

If we realize that art bottom to g rapple Vith the pr.oblem of repropation is to g rapple vith the problem of evil we shall not be

tao hast y to tind tault vith Barth 1 S presentation. Just aS •. 8. vil must' not be seen as a second" god " in the univers. ( for th1.s ... 1eads .to the who~ unacceptable position of duallsm) 80 also it would seem that reprobation must be viewed as a " being wi th," : as that:. l'\Which . has objective standing o~ in relation to ~d, o~ in relation·to

-that which God does not will, on~ as a parallel to that nothingness which Gad does not will and yet which Il is Il precisely because he does not will it. If Jesus Christ is incleed the will of God, what else can we say' but that GodJ'Villa the election of aU Dlen and. that. there ia no Calvinist double decree ? Reprobation thcm can exist as,.o~that which he does not will and yet that which has no existence, .14thout him.

If this is difficult both to follow and tG underfltand we

t (1) Karl Barth" Church Dopatics,III, l, Edinburgh, T. ~ T. Clark, 1958. In thisVolume Barth has an entire section o~ this matter.

can only reply tbat the probleaa ot evil ia dUti.cult as wll.. 1 do

Dot think that it is suf'ticient to critici.. Bartià' 15 theol7 at tbi8

point 14~hout being able to otter a better alternative. The problea of

evil is notoriously ditticaJ"t &rld '1t JJIq' well bit the case that; DO adequate

solution has been toUDd. or ever will he tound to it and to aU tbe , (1)

further questions it entaila.

(1) Jacob Joc~ , in Ih! Co!!Dapt:. A Tbeploq 2! Hœan De!tiw, Gr8J:d _piçt~, Michigan, EerdlilaDa, 1908, cpI •• tioqs, whether. di' DO~ Bart;b bas real.l7 reaained within the l.iJIlità 'ot the biblical reVelat10D Dl h1a doc;trine. Helfri tes: n Kore recent.1y, Barth has appll.ed hims-.U to the problem of evil, attaptiDg to.providë a dialec~cal. solut1œ: ,vil is not so quch a realit7 ~ it8e1t as a r~alit7 aris1Dg'tra. the lorc,e 01. tbe Divine No. Barth def,çribes anl as " dU;' •• -, whicb d~" not DleaD • notbingn ..... bP.t ratMr describe'"S'tbeDtive charact~ ot the Rihilla(p~~). He th!,nadds th:l.s c:CIIIIlent: a It ia a q,.,tioD , hove:Yer, whether B&rt;p bas ~ed tq r-.ain v1:t;1dp the leg1~1mat. contine~ of biatQric ~~lon ill}p.' theol0S7 ot eYU. Hiselabor.ation of the concept of ' cheos' la lIOre r-imacem., of a m~tap~~ial &PPl'NCh tban' of bioUCa;L ex."sis ft' (p.87).

G,.~.He!.ldr.v, in _. reviev, C)t: Ohurch J!o".,.ti,s U'~I .. û,), tu0!if: !odar' 1958, p.403, remaries on a certaiJ1 ~n •• e ~ BViih's: at7 : " A certain loo.~.as or aven equ1~t.iOn in BUth la use. ot the t.érm ' rejection' Us;·tomi4l •••• ~~im~a lt, ia u~, of God's rejec;.tion of man, aClll8timea ot -..n'a rej~ct1:CXl of Gocl~1I

J.D.Bettia, 22. :su.., ~~ ~t r~J1rob.tion i~e~lt, i~ Bartih'& theo17, can be' ~stood to proceèd fr" (Jod'a 10Vet. The disobedient man la ". '. ~ lite a DI8D wi.ldng dowtl on tbe up..eaCalator. Ris acttYit7 is not halted, but 1t8 etféctivezies. ià nullitied If (p.430). BetUa ' ~rka t~at If 'arth doe& not ",an that dilIIobedience i. aaq èubject­ive17 real and bas no ODtol.osical realit7 aa ~~er cla1ms~ B.r tbis phrale Barth show., ·the.t di~bèd1ence ia iDetfect1Y,e;, 1t 1& ~iJIPossib1.e tOI' Dien to ~scape t~ the love ot Gad. .. (p.4.31). Bettis alao bel1eW& that Barth clearly aUowâtor reprobatiÇ)n:. '11 But it can he a.rguec:l that in Cbrietth& eventual. end of diaobedlence Ma alree4Y bee" ·acbieBd. Thls le the point ot thoae who cla1mtba:t; ~h 'a tbeo;Logy le. to univeraaliam,. • • • ~h 1 s reply 18 cle.~. The tbre~t ot ~ rejection rema1ns a real threat ( Church iOeaticl, IV,.3, Pirat BaU" p.477) (pp.432-43.3). '.'

It may be remarked that Brumer b!msel1' takes an approach

to the problem of evil tbat is not unlike t~t of Barth and this e:ven to

the point QI speaking of " not-willing~'! He writes:

• • • ve know that God does not will our ~n" but that He does not allow our sin to driva HU. out of our lives. Even as ainnera we remain under God' s Hand • • ,~ • What we hav~ done againat Il .. s will bas alreadT .been" traD. tbe very baginning" part ot Hia plan. How this cm }Je , we do not know; this .int.el"pla;y of ,. not.-Will~' and ' not-do:1.ng' ~n ·t~e one band, wi th the vill that plans and rul.s on the other, is something tar beyond our Understanding. It has no analogies witb the world witb vhich we are tamiliar • (l) . .

The abova is also a nIIlinde.r ;ret. &gain that B~er is no

eas;r proponent ot a natura! theolog. Bartb haselt would argue. against

analogies because thq assumed an analogia ~ wbich is bat another

tom of natural theolou and he demands Ul aeal,0ëa t~ whicbis

a recognition of revelation in Jesus Christ. It is helptul,tJl,eretore, to

bave Brunoerls comment before us)for p4rt of the reason .we.f1nd,th~ notion

of God 1 S non-villing 80 ditficult is that tbere is nothing p~eciseq to

which we might compare i t; there ia no human analou. The ~adox emerge.,

however, that Brunner,the supposed delender of " natura! theology," reluses ta

sp8culate end remains content to say very little about God 1 IS non~willing.

Bartb, hQwev.e,r~ el~borates bis thought at great. length ,~ It i~ true tbat

one cao question how close be remains to the Bible in t.his e~ansion of

his thought. But ,a cloae reading of bi.B discussion of " not~ss" will

lead one to appreciate yet f~ber the remark he m:ade i~ connection witb

Supralapsarianiam that that doctrine os not so Iluch speculation as detense

(1) &nil B1'I1mer, ~e Christian Doctrine 2-' Creation and Redemption, Dogmatics II,London, L'iltterworth Pr.IS, 196ô ( First 'J)ublished 1952), p.174. ' ' ,.

66

against bad speculation. C,hyrch Doeatics III/i.3 , " God and NothingnessiJ."

is a t~ IlUtertul dealing wi'th the th_e, and. one wh1ch ranges with

reaarkable insigbt Oftr the spectrum of Christian and non- Christian

thought. For inatance,( if it is not too strange to sq),he se.a to

underatand sartre better than Sartre underatands himselt • Barth appreciates

the trsaendous torce that nothingness bas had in philosop~ and the

resurgence of interest in this concept in recent years. His survey- of

great thinkers such as Leibniz, SChleiermacher, Heidegger, and sartre,

raises the question it in facto such speculative thinldng- is nota

necesstt7 ? At an7 rate, it is wi tbin this cU.a1.ectic that Olle DlUSt unde,r­

.tand the role he &scribes to rejection and thus genu1nely and reall7

entorces his denial of UDi versalilIII.

CHAPr~ FOua

RESPONSIBILIT!'

67

The third chief area of BruDœr' s criticia of Barth '. doctrine of election may weU be. te~ed re8j,onaibUit;y. This ia a wide topic.: mdeèd:.alidi '. includes not onq the doctrine of electton but also tbat of revelation aDd the doctrine of man. Tbis genera! charge that Brumer makes can, in its turn, be divided into three pàrt.a:,,' .:

i) Objectivi8ID: the charge that Barth lIakes a .. forcible (1)

.. ~erance of revelation and tiith."

ii) Il Theologi_us": .. The er.ror of subatituting theo:logy (2) for persona! faith."

i11) Besponsibilit;y: A bellef that bis doctrine of election (3)

does a~ with the need for persona! faith.

It .will be recognized that aU of,theaè aerioua,:&cousi.tions are related the one to the other. l tbink tbat it ls IlOt untair to Brwmer's iuteDt to group the three of them under the one heading of " Reaponaibilitr.lt However, or the three, the tiret 'reJ.ataLllost'j;O·', a theology of election and for that reaaon will c()D!!llADd our greatest attention.

Vith reference to this latter, Brunner vritea as followa: The anner to tbis queation l of Barth t s 'uni vereaU.JI

] lies in ~ el~t peculiar to bis teaching, which has alwqs been characteriatic ~d pemeatea bis teaching as a whole: Damel;y, its t objectivism', tbat

(1) 1DU Brwmer, The Chriatian Doctrine of God.. op.cit., pp • .349-.3Sl. (2) làU BrUDper, ibid., p. 2.37. -(.3) lbil Brunner, ill!!.,' pp • .349-.3Sl.

68

is, the torcible severance ot revelation and taith, or rather -­since Barth &lso naturally wished to make a basis tor taith -the view that in ccmparison with revelation, with the ob~ective Word ot Cod, the subjective element, taith, is not on the sama leve!, but is on a much lover plane.

Whereas in the me8s~e ot the New Testament, Christ and taith, participation in salvation in Chri-t and taith, Justitication and taith, ab80lutel.7 belong together, and are on exactl)" the s~e level., so that we DUV' s87: , Whe~ there is no taith, .there Christ is not; where there is no taith, there, too, there is no salvation in Christ,' Barth does not,admit that this correlation exiata • • • •

Once again Wel IlUSt~: It lIl8.1' be that this ' obj ectivism , , this ' rela't!v­ization ' ot taith, ma)" seem illUllinating to m&n1' and ~ evoke their . enthusiastic agreement. But there is one thing t~at. even they cannot gainsa)": t.hat in so doing the)" are in clear opposition to the teaching ot the New ~estamen.t • • • •

First ot all, the result ia that the real deciaion ooly t~es place in the objective, sphere and not in the subjective sphere. Thus.:. the ... de.cision has been !p&de in Jesus Christ - tor all men. Whether the)" know it or not, believe it or not, is' not so important. The main point is tbât they are saved. The)" are. like people who seem t.o be per~shing in a stp,:rm,y 8e.~. But in reality the)" are IlOt in a sea in which one candrown, but in ~p"~qw water, where it ia impossible to dram •. 0nlT th. do IlOt know it. Henee the transition tr.om unbellet to taith is not the tranü~i~Il.!raI ' being-10 st , to ' being -s&ved'. n!!! turning -pbint does not ex1st, sinee it is no longer pQssibiLe to be lost •••• 'tihere remains no roCJll tor man. to make a real decision.(1)(2) ,

Bart.h' s 'ôll objectivismll is on a con'b.U1IIl with his Supralapsarian­

ism, and the emphas:\.s that we have tound 111 b1a..t.laeOlog": ... qn' 'what;.mi8ht,i:·be

ter.œed ,upr.~~t~r.r. B~er's cla1m ia that thia emphasisd~es violence

to t~ New Te.t8m~nt description ot taith.

Very closely related to the above is the assertion that

Barth is guilt)" ot 11 theolodsinus," a word that is explained b)" Brunner'. . (3)

editor as Il The error ot substituting theolog tor persona! taith.".

(1) Emil Brunner, ibid., pp. 349-3Sl. (2) .Ba;I.l. B~el', ~.I)t.Jin~. tllia analysis' in il later work, Il:!! Christian

Doctrine g! ~ Church, Faith, ~ COQslIIIIlati;i: .London, L~te.rworth, 1962, p.2l2,"Excuraus. On the. Contemporary Thëô ogical Situation~'J He writes on P.2lJ: Il He tBarthl regards inter.st in the believing subject as Mere piet.istiQ subjec'ti vi8Dl~·I, .

(3) Emil Brunner, Tbe Christiah Doctrine ot Gad, ge. cit., p.237. - . ,-- ~

69

l believe tbat " theolQsiSDlU~ n ls ldentlcal. vith the çhiet, caneern e ..

tbat Bru,nner has in hls ~ee~gl.y perceptive book Truth &!. Encounter.

The. above, tirat published in an Engliah editicm in 1964, is.largeq a

reprint ot the e&rlier ~ Divine-H1JIl8I1 Encounter, tlrat published in

&1glish in 1944 ( and in Ge~ in 1938, henee betore Church Dopatiea

Il,;2). The dilference between the two booka reaides in Part One, and

this includea., a sharp attack on Barth on the one hand and Bul~.OD the

other. . Reape.c.t1."elt, th~ are.:. d1ai'ge.d .withAt.. ogjecti.~, ,~t: and. Il ... subjecti vi~ Il

We might take the tollow1ng as examples of this general. criticislll:

Just. as 8~gDificant is his [ Bart.h 1 ~ increaaing alienation. f~ Kierkegaard'.s . exiatential. and dfnandc viev ot apostolle taith, and from his se.arin~ criticism ot ' ChristianitT'. • • •

NothiDg indicates more clearly bis los~ ot earlier ~~t,·-leamed fran Kierkegaard - that taith is an existence ,than this absurd connecti~ of e~~tence wi th theoloq. There. ia iDdeed auch a thing as be~eving, or Christian existence" but no 8uch tbing as theologic&! exiat~nce., •••

• • • • for, h1m, faj,th ia 0011' , the subjective realization ot an objective!!! ' ( KD,n;, l, 828)'. • • • . " .

Bu~ i.e we inquireabout the r~, deepest reason for this later. declension trOlll the ,taridpo~t. ot the original Barthian. theolo~, 'fe must. Itoe it in an objectiv1sm - ~hat t'WU ju.1t as t~ a~q from the eenter ot the Biblical. ·taith ot the a.tol'Jllers as the subjéctivism ot the theologr of Sc~lermacher which Barth attacka. '. • .' . , .:.. .

• • • • accordin~, Barth does not deal with faith Wltil near the end of ~a DOFê~iqs,~nd makesit clear there that faith h~s 'a very s~9rdinate p~ace 1n ccmparlson ldth the revelation of God. He", we have cert8.1n11' the anti,poqès ot Schleiemacher' à lb!. Christian Faith, but this antipodes ia just as far trClll the Bibliçal witness to GOd and Christ, Ml1cb.~s alvqa a witneas ot taith, as Schleiermacher. The correlatiC?not the truth of revelat10n and the truth of taith that ve tind in the Bible and the Refol'Jll.,ra 1s ahatte,ed, and the place ot a divine tr.uth that d1ac~qaes itaelt'onlT to taith 1a taken by a metaphy'sièal speculation a~ou&Go(f. Cl)

, .

Cl) &dl Brunner, Iœh!! Encounter, London, BÇH, 1964,. pp. 43-45.

70

The third , point 01 criticia coinc1des vith the title 01

tb1s chapter. It is the accusation that Barth's doctrine of election d~nigrates the respon,sibll1ty 01 man • Onçe .ore 1t must be said ,that the relation 01 tb1s i8 exceedingly C108~ to the tirst two points of

" cri~icillDl • It must alllo be sa1d that this eoncept touches a raw neNe in, the Barth- Brunner debate,for it i~~ves not merelT one's ,co~ption

o~ electiQll~ but ~so tbe tremendous17 '~compl1cated di=-pute over nat~al theology to 'Which we have alreadT alluded. l have choa8n the gener&l titl.e . . . .

" Responsibilit~' tor this chapter ,because to cpestlon the' rol.e 01 \ f~~~ in l&lvat~on le~l' 1;0 obvious doubts ,about the place of h1lJDàn responaib1l1ty in it. If that is t~e" then is it ,turther the case that there ia a deni­gration of responsibility in, general.? Put in !ts qroadest, te~, tb1s leac18 to the::.. qUI stion " of ttie'relati~',ot.,~etOI7,:ütQ'God~~si,~work.c;:,",~b.!ore the,' fo~,tion of the world'.'J This matter o.f re8ponsibil1ty goes vell back in th' B.rth-Brunper controvers.y:

• • .' on~ a ccçplete~ theological ~thropolo&1, which beg1ns with' t~e great central truths 61 the Christian laith;"" the Tri~ty, Election, and Incar­nation - and 1a directed towards th~ final. Redemption, wUl be in a, position, without caudng now' m1sUllderlta.nding8~ to show clearly m.y concern, a8 agmat Karl Barth, l18JJle17 man';s ~onsibllity. It 1s that &lone, and not ~ weakening Of' tlle dC?Ctrili. •. Qi t he ~ gratia, wbich c auaes me to ho14 fast to the J,JiJ?lical dOctrin~ of a genera! or ' natural' re~lation of· Gad, in sPi te 01 all th ai; , may be . s&id to the eontrary. (1)

Brumier clearlJr relates etbies and' responsibili ty in gener&l to ap~r~d~rstanding 01 election,althougb he does not asaertthat ~h's doct~ne of election destra,rs human aecountability • For'Brunner the - r- (2) Cbr1ltien ethic 1s an, .. et,hic 01 ~ection'.t'

(1) ,&ail Brunner, Man in Revolt,London, I.utterworth, 1962, ( First published in Engl.is~ in i9'39;-and ~n German' 1ri 1937), p. 11. (2) &ail Brunner, '!!'!!. Chri8t:tanDO~trine !il. pod. ga.ill,.,p.312.

71

The cbiet' question that emarges trom these three

accusations tor our parpose& ls whether or not Barth can, in &nT

meaningtul sense, leave raca t'or lnJIan taith? Thàt is, just as when

one is taced with bis daœr1ne 01 double predestination one is virtual.l.7

torced to a.Bk Il Should Barth DOt, ther~ore, be a univera.alist,?" So now

it must be asked il he leaves raaa tor taith.

B1"UDDer beli~ that he do es note In so belleving (1)

he tinds himselt in tlle ~ of a large number ot critics.

(1) S.A.Matczak, Karl Barth ~ Gad, lev York, St. Paùl Publications, 1962, pp.168-169, vr1tea: Il •• 0' the probl .. or persoDal bellet still lack:s claritl' in Barth' s explanatiœ. rhia obscuritl' becomes more evideDt. it ve remember that the Blble requires a personalsubjective beliet tor our etema1. _:n.tion 8Dd that Barth accepts it .'" Il Our tinal judpent on Barth's doctrine ot predestination is tbat he presents clearq eaough his theory ot why w:e are objecti vel1' predestined but lea .. ~ed the problem. ot subjective bellet. Il Il The main objection apinst Bart.h' s position mal' be ceDtred' on the tact that tor bill t'aith bas DO rational tound~tion whatttVer."

Robert ~. Os~orn, in Fneclca.!!! Modem Theology~ Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 191iÎ, preaeats an ~ellent briet sUnel' of critical reaction to Barth's. theor,y ot election and its iDiplicationa tor taith: .. "Eduard B1Jes~ objects to Barth's doctrine ot predestination because it tends to' deD7 bistOl'7 • • • • (buij Barth 's view 'is not so undialectical as olten appe&rs. Baltbeauoc;œeedes this whf/n h-. rem:l.nds us that Barth' s tendencl' tovarda 1deali !!lll is iritension ~th a steadtast .phasia Qntbe historie&! l'eftlatiœ ot J.esus " (p.120, ~()te 22) ~ '! Catholic crities, 011. the other hanc;l, tend t.o criticize Barth's empJtasis, not tor its liIIltatiœa uPon God's tnedQlll, but tor ita implicit dental ot'.-o and the t.manent treedoD h~ posses~es a~ tram and as the conditiœ or ul:n.tiœ. Thus Balthasar, at'ter detending Barth at qther pOints ot' Qp1.eaJ. criticisa, pr.otests that ' the priority ct . Ch~st in no wise dr-mda ( as Barth t~ds te, insist ) that the whole ot creationDl~ necesS&l'il7 he preaaed,. ~tully into a Christolpgical. scheme 0' Hans Xung aaJœs the _e point when he asks it Barth' s view tinal17 touche." un in Id.s hi8tor1eal u:I.s.tenc~o t In tact, i. not man as God's covènant partDertlnall,y amitted?' (pP,~123~124).n

O.born hilIl8elt _DS the lollowing eODllllent: .. As Barth 's doctrine ot predestination appears to 8W&llov up the historic&! deed ot Christ, 150 now bia doctriDe of the person and Work ot Christ appears ta eliJDinate the e'Rllt ot taith. an~ reduce tai~h 'and the work ot the Churcb to relatiw _anirlgJ.es~ness. This judgement is rather Unarnmous -œc Barth'" critics" (p.147, note 138).

72

As one examines ; Barth 1 s doctrine of election as it is in

Cbapter YII of Church Dopatics II;2 one will d1scover tha~ virtuallT " .

no apace 1. given ta this problem of the relation of faith to predestination. It needs to be asked if this i'aaission can be aubjected to criticiBJll ....... 1 belien tbat this procedure is true to the biblicaJ. model of election. 'lbe Bible doe. di~cuss the meaning or fai th. It &180 di.cusses election. att ~ Btble-,dOes, 'not" ~8e,' the: rel&tlon of, the: one tota. othe!!' as. " n

-=a areat probl-. 0t'O: be. agœiizéd oYer .>:._'., • The Deed for faith is etated, as la the ~act of election,but the veDd question of bow the two fit to-

(1), gether 1. apparentq not .'uaaJor 1:.sue... Il such is the case, then there i. DO d.arstrable necessity for Bartih to have inaluded a the 01081 of faith (2) vithiD Id. doctrine of election.

There is one notable exception to the above in Chapter VII. It 1. the clAlar and. explicit denialof synergism:

There 18 DO synergiq of 8D1' kind in the histor,y of Jesus Christ 115 electiœ, ~or in this histor,y ne!ther the sin of man nor the prayer of lI8D C8I1 pl.q the part of an aùtonanous JIl7Ster,y, as manls decision cCllpl.-.rtary to Gad 1 s. Thera can be no co-operation or reciprocal actlon or 8DT ldnd between any such lIITstery in man and the lIITster,y of the predestinàting Gal. (p.194) • '

The reaSon for Barthls approach, and 'for his opposition to 8JIlergl_, res1.des in the ver,y 1?aa~c concept of, his interpretation of predestiDat.1on, name17 the Gad primarily eleets Himself. If that ia true -

(1) Appendix One will attempt to demoDstrate that even Ranans 9-11 bas Men II1SUDderatood in this regarëi. < .. '

(2) Bd.! Bnmner, !!!!. Christian Doctrine g! God, 22. ~.,onp. 3;l2 uIœs a ccaaent tbat ha~ a beàring on the relatton of tai th to electlan: ft Henee the .vi.clenee of the lTew Testament doea not cœtain a trace of that whole canplex of probl~s conneeted wi th the doctrine of, Predest1Jlation, dealing 'e8peeial~ vith moral ~reed_ and ~sponsibilit1'.11

73 am it should be understood that this is the very central point of bis doctrine - ~heD clearly there can be ao ~ for JI8Il'a work iD Alvation •

. Grace &tone as lt ls in Jesus Christ is the groUDd of our el.ection. Put in this "W.q the rejectlon of 8JIlergism becCDes inevitable.

Yet Barth doe. -cœiaideJ:! . t.àitIL. -"iD: bis Church Popatica,

though not until l'It~I. Here a key detinition or faith la oUered. one

which B~er has severelv attacked:

It i8 a subjective realization. That.is, as a huœan activit7 lt CODsists in the subjectiv.i8ation of an objective!!! which in its existence and essence and dignity and scope takes precedence of tbia subjectiYia&tion and therefore of the human subject active in it. being independent of and 8uperior to this subject and wbat he does or d~ea not do. (1)

However, faith ia regarded by no means aimlib' as a. huun &Ct for the freedom to believe is it8elt something glv.n by the HolT Spirit and the Spirit i8 that same awakening power whlch aakes taith a sort of

(2) selt-endent act, and yet aU the more rree for that "Ver'7 reason. Though -Barth sees the Il point of contact" of the Gospel wi th man DDt iD aDJ" natural . .' . theologr but rather in the Koly Spirit, f-reedoaa .... , .. ls noœthel..ss still . - (3) an emphasis in lrl:-~ theology of faith: that taith is a free hœan act. Th~ ~t:J.ve aspect of faith in hUlll&ll terms is expressed in tbree vorda: . - . . .. (4) " acknowledg.~, recognit.ion. and confession'.!' To sau enent aU

three of these are. ways of knowing. In the German, Barth ls plqing on the .. . . ~ . ...

ward lœnnen ~ writes of anerkennen, arkennan, and bekeJJDeD. This. three­lold apprbach ia inspired b.r the older dogœatlcs which gave the claasical

(1) Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, l, Edinburgh. T.and. T. Clark. 1956, p.742. . . (2) Karl Barth; ~., pp.746 and 748. (3) K,rl Barth~ ~., p.757. -(4) Karl Barth, ~, p.758.

74

definition of faith aa taking place in the three acta of no1;1tia. Cl) .

asa.ensus, and ffdv.cia. B~h writes that " 'lhe r4!co~tion. ancl

confession of faith are included in and tollcw fram the facto tllat the, (2)

are originally' and proper~ an! acknowl:,;edpent, the tree act of obedience."

B-.1t th. object of all of tbia, the!:!! itself is Jesus Christ - not

creed, dogma, Church, or even etat_ents about Christ.

~fone recognizes the above, that for Barth taith il , ~ '., '.' '. , • 4,

mo~. than the subjective appropriation ot a rel, that it includee the

work ot the Roly Spirit in one' s lite, and that it is an attitude which

leads to the Il huadUt7 ot obedience," than one must ask if Brunneris .. (j.)

not being somewhat untair in his criticism of Barth's view of faith.

Incleed; Brunner's ,concept of faith, in ita turn,has been cri~icize4 for . .. . (4)

being Oyer17 8Ul?ject~ve. Brunner, however, has &sserted that he $Dswara .' '(S).·

tbis criti.ci~ in his Dotp!l&tics, V:ol.III, chaptera 1.3 and l6~ Th"

accu.ation &gainat Brunner, however, at lEt&8t serves to point out the

diffic~t7 of stating a conception Of taith that ia ta:i.thtul both to the

subjective ând objective elementsin the Bible. As we have noted, it is _ . J

true that Barth writ.es of taith as "the subj~ctiviaa~ion ot ~ oQjective

I!!. li" ~ butill ~t, an tlla,t he ~tes about taith4 as humility, taith as

emptineas b~fore~d , .ore than a c~~ter-bal.ance to tbia concept?

Yet there ia undoubte~ a aen~e in which Brunner's

att$ck is true.The Bibledoea 8a7 ·more about taith - vaat~ 1Il0re -- than

Cl) Karl Barth, ~., p. 758. (2) Karl Barth, ibid., p.7S8. tn Karl ~rth~ :l:b1d.., p. 620. (4) aeid,~r. Ha.se, " Truth as Encounterl,~ in The Theoaogy ot !Bl B~er,

~dited. by Charles W. Kègle7, New York, The MacMillan ComP8Dl'i '19 2, pp.lSo-lSl,.

CS) ~l B~er, 11 Rep~ to Interpretation and Critici8IDI;~ !h!. 'lheoloR - ot Bmil Branner, ~., pp.338-339. . ~~.:: '

75 h1sS1'st. se8118 to &Uow. Ve need ~ to be ~ed ot Jesus' trequent appeals for taith" ot st. Paul's key notiClll. ot justification by taith" and ot the concept ot " believe in" in the Gospel ot St.John 1. Barth" on the other hand" tar trom tollowing thia biblical JIOclel" a.ppears to be stating bis theoD.og;y in reaction to the subjectivisa otJJ.beràJ..:thought. 1Ih1s - baclcgQ,lBld, . it1.:muat be; UDderatood, tODl8 aD import8llt part ot Bartl1' s theolog1cal he~J,tage. It vas against theological liberall8lll that he reacted in hia tamous cCIIIDentar;y on Raaans. One JI&7 th~, aq that thia reaction continues thro~qut the Church Dopatica vith their empbasia. on the ob­jective wo~k or Gad in Jesus Christ. But-it must al.80 be said that Barth's view ot tai,th ~s been worked out in relation to the bighl.J' aub~ective opinions ot Rur;l~ph Bultmann whose interpretation ot tai th Barth . crit1cizes as be1pg sOlll8What par~el ,.te?' the RcBan Catbollc interpr8tat1~q .. of the mass in its conceptio~ that taith ia a re-eœctaent ot the death and N-'. (1)" .. --' . , .. surreci;ion 9t Christ.

HOlr(8"ar"Barth se8118 to bave adopt;ed' thia :~.~~se .ot action ~tl1 deliberatioJ;l. He vritee.: " Ve shall' give to the indiv:l.dual Christian . ' '",' . :' '. ,. ~

and hi. taith t.he attention' which he demanda" but 1t must be at this . . (2) point - DOt .at 1ib.e. beginning ot our way, but brietl1' at the en4~. . .' (3) He writes ot "tl1e individual. Christian vith bia pUIJ,Y tüth .• :11, Faith . .;

must b, Chr1s~910gi~al~ underBtood and i~erpreted in the llght; or. the . . role of' Chri~t; " Ot the three factors - justitication, taith" ~ Christ . ", ' . . (4) .. - the basic ~d. controlling one 18 obYiousl)" the last'.l' ,TheretoN,

(1) Karl Barth, Cburcb D0l!êtica, IV,l, 22 .~." p.767. (2) Karl Barth, .ibid., p.741. (3) Karl Barth, . ibid., p.741. (4) Karl Barth, ibid." p.639.

76 one .,. att_pt to attack Barth' a I!IJ8tem of theolog because itbr1ngs taith in 0011' near the end. But. one C&DJlot &BSlllle tor a moment that this is an accidental procedure or that it is dons as an atterthought. Barth begins with God and ends vith _ •• In so doing, he believea that he is to~owing things as they reall7 are.

Brunner, however, ia not .re11' asserting that Barth'a view ot faith i~ inadequate • He is sa,izls that Barth àoes not reaJ.~ allow for taith at aU, and tbat the event of faith is sWept up in the decision ot God which pre~ .. des huaan hiato17. On~ wondera in respons~ to th1s question it !!!Z. theologic&! system which places stress upon the sovereignty ot grace sutfic1ent17 allows tor taith without. at the same time entertaining sane degreè of paradox • Certain17 if one took 1l8D7 of Barth's. statements at tace value and sought then their logical implication, one would express the same reaervations that Brunner. and DI8IV' other critics have expressed. But in the preTious cbapter we have attempted to show that Barth 'a doctrine is not ao undial:.ectical as sane people belleva; that many of his remarka must be interpreted through a sense ot 8tyl~1 and that the logic he obeys is a Il higher logic" or the Word of God. In spealdng of his style we .,,~

tut. he has the habit of making wbat appears to be an eJ$reme and unqua.J.U'ied statem.en\i ad· tbeD of quaUtying it atte~s. By Il bigher logic" 1re r~er

to his hermeneut.1cs wtlich 1re have ~ready discussed in Chapter Two.· In this way, as we h~ye.att8lllpted to demonstrate in the last Chapteri ~arth. Qoes

. . allow for rep,robat1~ and cannot tairlT be charged with universalisa. It reprobation is a possibil1ty then the eveDt of faith assumes a de&r.~e or importance it could not have otherw1se. It will bé recognized t-.t, Brunn.,r's

TI concerri for Ba~h'8 viev of taith ls aD outcCJRe primariq oi Id.a bel.1e1' that Barth ls one who goes H beJald 1JDiv~raal.iSlll".' We are tbàret'ore deIwiDg

one of the premiS.e8 on which Branner contrœta bis acc~atlO11.

,What DOW do va make of the three chargea which BI ... r brings to B~~h' s theoloQ' of electlon and whicb ve bave gatherecl œder

the pueral ~adlng of n respoJialbility Il 1 .' (

~,s B,rt.b guilty of Il objectlvism: the forclble snermce of

revel~tlon and ffillthtl ,1 Iodead, ls 'guilty' in 8lly sense an apt chalce of worda' 1 Does lt re~ matter 1fb.ether or not one 18' objectiye iD t.Id.8

sense 1

Certainly lt cannot be denied that he ls an objectiT.i.8t. Brunner is quite rigbt that for Barth faitb is Il not on the sae l.eYel.

but is on a, !Ruch lower place Il tban revelation '. . Barth 1IK;)uld be t.he

first to adDP.t"th~s - and the flret to defend the position tUt tbis ia the oalY proper, procedure for a tbeologian of the Word of God. Barth doea

separat., taith and revel.ation, but lt 18 not:. at aU selt-evident that thia

procedure i8 unacriptural. When one reads Barth one readiq aees tbat t'or hiDl revelàtio~ centres on Jesus C~st. But as one reads further and paaders bis underst~ing of revelation lt becCll8s clear that there ls a seue iD

which he under.~t~d8 electlon ltsel.t to be revelation. If that la 80, if electlon ia God~8 great selt-determiDatlon to reveal himselt in Jesus Chr.iat, then faith clearly beC0III88 s,epar4ted traa revelatiëm. What CBI) lI8Il .,.,

in this primary, .qecision of God, to &Ct in a certain vq 1 Tile ~ 18 notbing whatever. 1 believe, that lt la. in, this sense ~bat· ve JIl1l8t 1Dterpret his opposition to aU 81'nergia: Il faith as such cannat. contriblte aJVt.hi.JJg , - (1)' , ' ' to our justification. n, ~s 1 t b.Y aqy .e8l1S certAin that th1s descript.iœ

(1) Karl Bartb, ibld., p. 6l7~ -

78 of God' s saving. act ia. n~' ~o1D'1ded:.' ,on the Bible? No,. '1ndiad. tpè ~ .. ~ , ! reversa seEllls. to be the -.se 1 fort~e very doctrine ot pred8~~t:Lœ ls premised on the intent of Gad n before the t~tion ot the.world~~ Thus Bart.h can rightly be said to be an objectivist. T-hi,s , howeftr, is not an accustation to be made aiDlpq~ agà.:i!lsthis doctrine of election an~ . .

of taith but p170bably against. bis whole t~eological Diethod. %~twe cannot tor . the purposes of tbis thesis assU118 that Brunn~r is right and Barlh is wroDg vith regard to a theology of revelation. Indeed, it can be argued. that when one takes into account Barth's aapbasis cm the role of the Sp1rit in taith that bis interpretation of faith is not so far trom Bl'UJlIl8r'''' as the latter himselt sul?poses.

Brunner's second charge of n theolosi8lllus" ia close~ relaf,ed to the tirst, and can be ansvered in the S8lll8 manner. Do.,s Barth real.q substitute theology tor personal. faith? The a,nswer,. 1 belie~, is

yea, if one is able to stop vith his, d~tin1tion ot taith as the s~ject1,.e reception of a œ. But we have already' given reasonfi. which show that his grasp of taith is ~ast~ broader than that detinitlon. . For h1m t:aith is not mere],y an intellectual thing but a personal relation with God through the Roly Spiri:~, a relation which depends on the freedcm ot man and genuine~ demanda a decision. This f81th is Dieant to result in and is characterised bJ

. hUlllility which le~8 to obedience. This humiUty, clear~, is not .lDeant

simply to be the reception of theological knowledg~, but ra.ther isindicative "

ot a deep and protound attitude towards God. Ido not tbink that &n1' t&1r,

reading ot the section " JU8~i~icat10n by Faith 'leme If in Churcb, Qo.~?~ IV,I will allow the charge ot " theo~ogi.8IIlUs" against Bax-t.h' s theology to stand. Barth shows himselt essential~ to be in deep ~e8lllent vith

79 -

the Reforaed, conception of taith. ~ thia regard he approving1.y citea

both Lut;her and Calvin, and adop;a a 'critique of Trent;. a teaching OB

justification by raith that ia ent~ cœapatib1e, with tr~tional

Refol'll&tion theolog • In short, if Barth ia guilty or " theolosiSIIUS ft

then apparently, so al80 are Luther and Calvill.

T~e, third charge, ~act of ft N8p0D8ibility,"" depends to a

large degree on qD8 1 S estimate of the tiret tvo if Olle is to judge 1ta

validity. Yet the ~ssue it repreaenta 1a wider than the nature of faith

and. includes the question of natural theol087. Perhaps this issue has

caused such heated debate not only because 1t 1s aymbolic of the divisioD

between Barthls theolog ~d Brunnerls doctrine, but; 81so because in a V8I7

real vay it is the point at wbich they' are c10sest. As one reads both of

these great teachers, it beCClll8S fairq apparent tbat in the best sense of

the word they are evangelic81s. That is, their theolog is evangelical. ~

intent. It, is meant as a modern statauÏlt of the evangel, the good news.

Barth took the way of objectivism as perbaps the only possible way gi'V8D

the theolog1c81 climate of the earq part of' th1s centur;y. But; bis.&:la .

was clear: the recovery of the Gospel. For h:1a the, wq vas revelation thl'ough

Jesus Christ alOlle.: through God alone, God is known. Brunnerls:jml"pOH

was identical in itscCDllitmsnt .. to the recovery of t~e Gospel. ,But,

though one can never accuse bim Qf', cClapl"œi.s1.ag grape, ",b1S: .\l''atart~-poiDlo.~

~!I., W of pres8nting truL "evangill,. inc1uded_ ap: emphasi8:.1ODiimazilll btspcaaibility.

ilhe iDner,. wisd.œ!., of,;, thill:. approach wu clear., ': people ;ji are:" 81wqs:,~.;intër.ested _

in th_selves. Kan may be agnostic about GQdj but. man is never agnost.ic (1) . ,

about himse1f. Thus for Brunner a fairq earq theo10gical interest vas

a Christian anthrop()logy (H!Œ!!1 Revo1t. 19.37). Barthls massive treataent

(1) lbi1 Brunner, !!!!'!a R!voit~.~., vrites 0Il p. 82: .. No man i8 a .. ' cynic wher. his ,own cl_a té) be cOl1sidered i8 concemecU It

80

ot the dootrine ot man eane2f eorreapondingly. later. Huch of what

Brunner bas to say in I!!l i!! ReYC)lt lits very well lUlder bis own

phra"e eoined sOllle years later, n Hissional'T, 'l'heol081Ie~ Brunner, th8ll,

belleving in a "point of contact" in man, attempted to reach man vith

th~ Gospel in an eJlinently logieal way :. by' starting to diseuss the

Christi:an unders~anding of man, and by' sharing bis conception :ot man' 8

responsibi1it7,. 'l'he whole procedure, of course, presupposes a certain

theology. Brümler, then, developed bis theology partia.lly ip acco~ance

with tbis cpncept. of l'8sponsibillt7. 'l'heretol'8 a theo10gy sllch as Bart~'8

which began so Uncanprœdsingly at the other end could 0013 .ppear to lrlm to . ., (1)

:.result.:d.nt denigrating the responsibilit7 of man.

Here again we a.sk if tbis charge can really stand before

a fair reading.-.ot ,Barth 's estimate of fai,th. l belleve that it cannet, and

this larg~13 on gromds alreadT u;pressed. If one is not a miversa11st, ~

if one bel1eves in a taith vbich is character1zed b,y humillt7 leading to

obedience, thenone can scarce13 he said to be lacking in eensitivit7 to

the responsibilit7' àttendant upon pers on&! faith. Barth, ho_ver, nshes

to ramain a Calvinist in bis interpretati<lll of fa11;h as proceeding .trall

th~ Ho~'Spirit •. Faith lIl&7 come trœ a man's tree decision, but that

freedom itselfproceeds traa God: Il A man does not have t14-s. freedom unless " ., (2) , ,

tJle Son mak~s ~tree.1I Indee~, Barth maintains ~hat a person is olib'

.. (1) We should note that thls iSlllue of the evangelical intent40n ot ,the

respective t~E!ologies ot Barth and Brumer is ~,no ~ean!. a. aide ' issus. Barth has cle~q st~ted tbat hi, dm in the doctr:l,.ne of election ~8 once more té,.'recover it' a~ Qospel. 'l'bis approach to the doctrin~ is shared ,b7 ]3rupner. But w àb6uld alao note that the o+d debate bt one's .PPJ'o.ach: to thoa8 outside the' 'aith 1a DT no means a se:t;tlttd o~. What is the p~le~,n~ to e:yan8eJ.1_? That the answer to t'bis quest1011 1s un,certain indicatës' th,e cop:tinuing ~portance of the issue •.

(2) Karl Bt.rth, Ch~ch Doeitics.IV'l', p.745. ., • '. • • '. j ,

81

free in th1s .treedc:m wbichGod 81fte hiiL. Brunner, al the other baIld,

vbile IIOst anxi ous t~ l~etâin the. sola. gratia ) sees. Jllan as being much

lION persalal.l7 r8sponsible tor bis" 01fD 1 ' ••••. saivation th80 does Barth.

At th1s point, .. ot course, we enter a very: familiar dispute: th1s 1&

the Calvimst-Arminian controversy but restricted to th1s one point alone.

Barth vi_bes ·to., remain f~tb.tul to bis conceptiOD of the work of Christ,

to his Supralaps-.r.1anisuL, to the sovereignty of grace • .Brurmer se.s the

probl. surJ"C?1l1'lding personal. faith as l'estingon a confusion;~c;l1!~UB

strea888 ""-onal,reaponsibUit,' . ;;1n_f~yb1..atronglJ',whUe remaining qui te . p~- '. (1) . . .

coaa1tted to the '!2!!. gratia,. of salvation. But wbi1e Brunner mq appear

to be an " ~ian" in th1S matter and Barth a Calvinist, a· close reading 1

of their resp8ct,i!e posi~i~s .. s~!~sts tbat in essentials t~!,r~ is DO real

difterence between them •

. Perhaps the real issue ~twe8A Barth and Brunner on the

queation 01 faith .~d election bas ta do with cons1e1;e\Dçy. Brunn.r insists

(1)

. . .

BaU Brunner, 'lI!! Christian Doctrine 2! Ood,' !m. s!1!", p.316, writes: ~ 'The Jd.st~n "V'iewof ~aith, however, also aftected ,the, underst80ding of n.,étioii~·· Élection tbUs bec_ ' d.e~1'DIination 1 ." . . . .

"Behind tbis· dangerous doctrlnal' developaent. thera lies a fat~ contusion' ot 1deas. What tbeso. theologians' 'rea~' want to· sq is tbat of hillselt man is incapable ol.doing the will of Gad and, of bel:Leving 1~ Christ, and thus tliat f8.1th and treedaa are whoUy th$ gitt of GOçi. Th4t, irl point of fact,ie the te~bing of the Bible ••• BUt aU tbis lie. vithi~ the diDiension: '''Word- responsibility', ' Divinei,Person -h~ person'. This means that '~ CM never!!:m. grace, and hrther , tbat he Ca,Mot even rightly' wideretand the ward of gi"ac;e, and' believe it, aave as the HolT Spirit opeÎns his heart to do so • Bût . in aU tb1s man rsa;ine 1 perlon', and thé transaction between Gad and man reuiains a .. raonal ·poe,. somet~ng which 1; alœâ place within the spbere' of re­,pons1bility '. '. • grace 18' a perlonal act • • ."~ ... '.' , 1

82

onconaiatency and acbievea it vith aarvellQus clarity in the three

volUlBea of bis Do.tics. Barth, however, olten fails to draw conclusions

that his premisea woald appear to lorce upon him. In thia cue, if he

re~17 were conaiste nt J it setllla unlikeJ.,y that he ei ther would or could

le.ave room for reproblltion or a meaniogtul peraonaJ. faitll. Of courae,

whatbringa b1m to both of th.se la bis attempt to be f~th1'ul. to the

biblical record. Thare is a sense, therelore, in which Brunner's three

charges are aU vaJ.1d - if on17 Barth were COl'lsls1aœt 1 But they are (1)

not valid preciseJ.,y because he is not consist~.

(1) Robert T. Osbom, Freedom a Hodem Theolou, 2R.~.,p.179, writea:

"Once again we have been made aware of the UI1aystematic nature of Barth 1 s theology. 'We have seen him insist that Christian lmowledge is a testimony to the freedam and actual1ty 01 the WOrd. And yet he now insists, ~n bis last vol\IU, that the victo17 of the Word

. ia contingent upon the freedam of man' a. response to the WOrd, that indeed, "man is lree to refuse the Word and suffer damriation. "·

83

CHAPrER FIVE

AGRIIIIDr BBrW.BEN KARL BARrH un ooL BRUHNER ON THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

While the chiet subject ot th1s thas1s 1s Brunner'e criticl~ ot Barth's doctrine of elect1on, nevertheless there 1s _ple re&aon tor po1nting out the marked s1m1larit1es between th_. It le so orten thought tbat thq stand on opposite sides of theologicaJ.. 1ssues that it ls helptul, and 1!Rportant to d.nstrate the1r essent1aJ. agreement on this ,s~gn1ficant doctrine~ Indeed, one must IlOt Id.aunderatand the nature ot the d1alogue ~.t h~s 'gone on l)etween Barth an4. BJ:!UDIl8r. It 1e DOt as though they each worked through the1r t~.0108icaJ.. opinions and

th.n viewed dialogue ,-"a sClfletb1ng extra, sometbing added. a.tber, t-o~ both ot tJ1.,dialect1c belongs to the verr task of CQllstructin8 a theoiLou. ThOUSh an $l~t of harshneas bas crept ioto tbe1r public debatea, the1r final etlllld ,as alwqs to remai:n open to cr1ticiBll,l. ~hua Barth would never have claim.ed to be a B~hian. And Brunner wiahed on:Qr to part1cipate in a " theolou on the march.". For h1ra Il being finiahed" vas" almost identical ,(1)' , with being dead..'! Yet the' very tact of that debate~conduct~d in such robust style, bas sometimes cloaked their esaent1a! agreement .on ao many mattera ot tQUndational importance to Chr;1~1&D Faith.

(1) &dl Brunner, 'I9!. Theolo&y 2! ',ail Brumer, Charles W. Keglq, ad., ~. g!i., p.325. ..

In the tiret place, we ehould note that Barth and Brunner

are decided~ agi-eed upon their intention. Thq wish to re-work the

doctrine of eiectian, treeing it of speculation and ~ecove~g the

biblical insight that election is of grace.

Barth speaks of this in JIlOst explicit ten18 in his Preface

to Cbapter VII: ,',

Tbe york bas this peculiarity., tha,t in it l bave ,had to leave." th~, , traework of the theological. tradition to a far greater ext.ent tban in the' firetpart on the doctrine of God. l would have preter,J'scit.o tollOif Calvin 1 s doctrine o,f predestinationlllUch more clo~ely', ~st,â4 ot depaI"ting frcmit so r~cal~ •••• As 1 let the Bible ~tlleU' " BP'ak to me on these matters, as l meditated upon what l ae~d: ~o hear, 1 was ctriv,n irresistibly to reconstruction. (p.x, Preface). '

. . : '

Br.unner, writing in !!m ~ RevoIt, spoke of anthropology , '-

. as inte~reted 1?T Christian Faith ( and with it 'the doctrille of electiœ)

as • ••• burdened with certain fUDd8lllental. axiCllllS, wrongly regarded . . (1) '.

as Biblical. tr.ut.~.". 'What 'he saya. about election in that york, and later'.

in I!!! Christian Doctrine ~ God., is demonstration that he too has left

the theologiciA t~adition of which Barth speaks. Thera are many points ~ . .. , "~'. -.. .. . .

~ vhlch they h4"e both re-workedtbe tradition. The action of man in faith

ls DOt . r.ga~ed as mere passivity. n.ction is no longer ,ss~,d te

cleal merel;7 with individual election. Hos~ of all, the doctrine of ,a bidden

decree ap~ fran J~8Us Christ 1s attacked jointl1' Dy theDl. '.. '.'

Thoug~ we have al.readyobserved that Bruml~ 8ttack,' Barth

tor vhat he believes is Barthls speculative interpretation ot election,

~heless in a .. ~al vay they ~e unite.d, Bla1nst t~e thaon.ing: -,' ,

(1) Blil.Brunner, !!!!!a !!!2!t, 22. 9ii., p.10.

8S

ot traditional Calvinisa • It is spec.uJ.ation~ and DOt biblicaJ. truth~

which is the toundation ot the Calvinist theo17 or dQUble predestination

and the hidden decree. It is especial.l7 tbis latter wbich had crept in

alm.ost as an assumed thiDg~ an axiOill virtuaJ.qtakan tor granted~ that

Barth and Brunner attack IIIOst veha.entl7:

FraD. the outset l would observe that in the !!:!:!l tendenCl thera is tirm agreement 'between the doctrine of Barth and that which is represe~1;.ed in this bOQk: Barth's concem 1s the Baille as ours~ n.q~ the desire to 8tat~ the doctrine of Electio~ which is in h~y vith revelation and the thought of the Bible as a.Whole; bence it is our common concem to reje~t the spe~u;tative doctrine of Prede8t~tion inaugurated by August~e, the IIIOst inten8e expression of which i8 Calvin'8 doctrine or- the Doublé Dacne. Our concern is that Election newr be m~tionad save on the baais Qt the revel,tion in Jesus Chri8t, that we onl7 lmow the ' divine decree' in Je8us Christ, and that we have nothing to teach about a ' hidden deoree' of God concerning those who do not aocept .the promise of JeSus Christ. (1)

Finding themselves united in this lf8.7~ Barth and. Brunn~r

are one in redisc6veri~ the fact that election is ot s.r~ce •.. Barth CODlll8DCea

his discussion of the doctrine ot election by ponde ring the ~plication8

01 believing that election is election of grace. Brunner in indicating

that Christ is the toundation ot election is doing that as walla

The caU that is addressed to me through Jesus Christ trœ an eternitT caUs me to lD7 eternal destil'-T. To ho called traD. the ete mit y- of God to eternal -cODlllurdon with God - that 1s the Gospel of Jesus Christ. BrienY', that is the meaning 01 the lew Testament message of eternal. electi<l1.(2)

In words that are 8trikingly similar to the. above~ Barth . .

has written: Il To he determined by God's election is the ti~l -- but

real17 the final. lD7stery- of ever.y human lifell (p.43). Thua do both B~h

(1) »nil a~,er~ !9!. Christian Doctrine 2! ggg~ 22. ~.~pp.346-. 347. We bave ~e .,reterance to saae of the se remaries ear11er, OD; page 12~ but

. quote;f~bi8 passage DOW in its elltirety because of ~ts 'great, .;. importance for the question'at band. This quote,tion forma the obvious locus lor the contention tbat in the main Brunner'and Barth have a similar doctrine 01 el,ction.

(2) Emil Brunner, ibid., p.30S. , .-;

and Brunner de clare election to be good news,. Gospel, a ~essa8e ot

gladnes~ rather than ot darkneaa and gl.00lJl~

86

A second point ot agreeqaent, in addition to the intention

which they share together, bas to do withthe toUndation ot the d,octnne.

We do not need to repeat ourselves at this juncture in indicating again

that both ot. them be~eve that thlilY are going back to a tresh reading ot

the Bible' in reconstructipg the doctrine. Together they tind, in so doing,

that the centre ot this doctrine ia Jesus Christ. ~hey re-work the doctrine

tram a Chril;itological atandpoint, . though Barth is tar, more radical. in th1s

regard ( as, we have aeen) tban Brumer. We ha.ealreadT ~ examined, the: ditteranc ••

that have thus arisen in their interpretation ot predea~ination_ Npvertheless . we do well to remind ouraelves ot the eaaentiaJ. similarity 0+ the.ir

toundation. Barth eapeciall.7 bas provided a trenchant cOmmenta17 on ~

the other toundations theologians have used in developing their under-

st~ding of election(in Chapter VII, Section 32, Sub-lIection 2, .. The

FOundatio~ ot the Doctrine"} .Hia inquiry reminds us torcibly that the

foundation Barth and Branner have chosen bas DOt bean sslt-evident in

the history ot theology.

A third point ot agreement has to do with the rnarked

attin1t.Y, between what Brunner means by revelation ~ Barth Dl~ans by

election. If we recall that B~h deliberately places the doct.rine ot

election withint~ doctrine ot,God, and that tor Barth electio~. has to 1

dQ ~t,1:) God' s intention to act in a certain way, the tollowing q~ation , .' ...

tram Brunner takes on great signiticance in our encleavour to t1nd; linka

between their respective interpretations:

, Once .ore lM .... the· close connenon between Gocl' s NatFe and ~II rewlatiao. Because He ls, and wills to be, the Hol1' oHe, He. reve$ H1m8elt • • • • In Bis re18iation t~e :-_otherit1se.· Melden being of God is e:xprellsed. In what sense God is the Ho17 ~e, only Calles out ~here Hill H0l.1De- ..ntests itself aselecting revel .. ti~n anel revealing electiœ • !bus the position1s DO'h that firet or al.l Gocl ia ' BCIIle­thiDgI, and theD, later on, reve&1.e wbat He i .. ; rather, we IUT sIT that it is Godls ft1'7 nature to want to reve&1. Himselt, sLnee it springs tram His HoliDess.(l) . ,

'lothis let us caapare Barth' a 'Worda: " ~ .we. haVé :to do with

Jeaua Cbriat, we haveto do vith the elect1ng God. F'or elecUon 1sob­

vious:q the tirst and bas1c ancf dec1aive thing which we have.alwqa to

.,ay cOllcel"DiDg tbis revelat10n " (P. 54). Since: for ~rt.h revel&tion is

Jesus Christ, ~ it too Jauch to auggeat that therefore :el'-C~\ cODst1tutea

revelation ?

~h's doctrine of ele~tiOD seaœs to occup,y a position

witbUl bis tbBology aimilar to tbat which revelation occupies wi thin

Brunner's. It iD the early part of the Church Do_tics ~he"4ec1sive

factor 1a .. theology ot the Word of God, 1n :the 1ater part, atter II,,2,

the deciaive irurt,gbt appeara to be Jesus Christ as e1ecting God and. el~cted (2) ~

man. JOhn·Qod88,Y1 Who bas written an i~st~~t1ve art1c1e entitled

"The Arcbi~tw:e ot Karl~h'~ Church Dopatics ~n: asserts(~~at there

is great stractural pramnence to Bar1;h' s doctrine of e1ection. Thus .. ,. ,

Barth 'a concept ot election 1s central to bis "theology' as a w1101e,as wall

as to bis !dei!- ot reve~t1on \. Brunner, on the other hand, has allowed

(1) BIil Broim~r.'.!!!! CFistian Dgctg.1l! SI! God, 22- ~., pl'16? (2) F~L~~.. • ~heol~an of·the. Wo~ot GodJ.~ Th.oi01 Today, 1956-1957,

vrites GD: p~3l6:" There is a sh1f~. ~ the .Do.tics . 10h 'B~thasar calls a -ah1tt traa Word of Qc)ci' to J~EI,· Christj ~. &riel m~i,!.

(3) Jotm God~, u. T~ Arohiteoture 0' !~; ~h'" runu-~h D,?RJ!l!t1c~~}' 1956" the Sc~tish Jesmal.2!Theo1oq.wr1tea) p.236.: ii"Iil'Çh4pter 7 we calle

. to an-' ~b1tecturalpo8ition1ngd9t d~pis1ve iDipol."~ance within the Church Doeatica•• .. ,;". .• . . : , -

88

bis attention to revelaUœ to 1nf1Uilpce lIuch of bis thought. His' anthropology., bis emphas,"s on the role ot man 1 s decis:i.on, in the dialectic ot aalvation, his " natural theolo§ Il - a1.l of these presuppose ceJ"t;ain decisians about revelatian. Ot course, . nowhere 1a this more t.~ the case than in bis· diagnosis ot truth as encounter and in bis opposition to what he tel'lls Il objectiviSlll" ( Bartih) 8IJd Il subjectivism" ( Bultmann) in (1) ~heolo8Y'.

III indicat1ng other areas of agreement betwe.en Barth and Brumer we. will not repeat two ot the observation!, tbat emerged trcm our study in the last chapter, name17 tbat the7 both have an, evangelical inte~ion in their theology' ( and nowhere is th1s more evident than in .

, their handling ot the theme ct predestination) , and the,t,though their respective cœprehensions ot faith appear at tirstto he worlds apart, they are nonetheless much closer than even they admit. The chiet points ot agreement are the tiret three, aDd the sbared concem tor evangeliBJ;ll. To these may be added agreement on c~ation and covenanh providence, and the concept ot rejection and evil as Godls non- willing.

,Bart~ sees the eovenant as part ot God. 1 S '·eleetion: n Jesus Christ was the choiee or election ot Gad in respect ot this reality. He was the election ot Godls grace as directed towards man. He 'ws the election ot God IS coven~ vith. JIl~ Il (p.102). In this 1nsigbt

(1) David Caims, n The Theolog ot &a:ll BruMer;!' the Scottish Journal 2! Theology, 1948, p.294, vrites: Il As a theologian, Enil Brurm~r has alwç's h~ two main concems: tirst the exposition ot the epecial revelation ot Godwhich culminated in Christ, and its maintenanCe as s~tbi:ng ~st1nct tran the general. reve~tion ot Gad • :~ • and secandl1, the evaluation ot tbis geDer~ revelation trom the standpoint ot taith in the special revelation. 1I '

89 Barth is following Coccejus: If We are follow1ng an important, insight

, , of J.Coccejua ( §..The01., 1662, c.37,2) when we t,race back the concept; of predestinatiOn to the biblical COllCept 'of t he covenant or testaaent, the self-committal firet revea1ed to Noah ( Gen.9.14) ••• IJ '(p.102). Barth carries this thought through to bis theology of creation wherein creation is the " extemal. basis of the covenant " and the covenant is , en " the interal. basis of creationi.~' This, too, is connected vith Barth's supralaps&r1anism; " He [God) viUs and posits the creature neither ou,t "" (2) of caprice ~or of necessity, but because He has lovad it frcJll eterm.tY'.11 This love Barth would explain in terms of e1ectioD through C~st 1eading to the covenant.

Brunne~ expresses a similar thought in the follcn4ng WÇ":

The Creation of the world is connected with the doctrine of ilection by the fact that the lIed.ie.tor of both ia the Son, the Son whOII God , loved betore the toundation of the wor1d '. He is t~ Son-Logos, who as the Incam~te" One, gi vaà ua both the lmowledge of Election and the lmowledge t~at the wrld has been created throue;h the Son,: j:! " the Sœ, ~d unto the Son. Thus the, œigin,meam.ng, and purpose of the world are ~. to'be perc~ved where faith" in the h1at~rical. revelation of the ~,_ of Gôd ••• boc~a the" assurance of sternal election • • .". The C~.,,~on ~B;,~rdinate to &lection. • • • The wa.v of trutb proceeda from t~ehiat9ri.cal ~velation 'te the eternal. ~,ction, and OlÙ.3 through that to the C~atioA~ Thia is of decisive importance iD' thé underatanding of El~ctiCll1 itaelt. '(3) " '~he ,~ve daaonstrates a remarkable cOrr8spolldence of

thought between these two thinkere. Their generaJ. app~oaéh to c~ation iloself is thus dictated br their strong cClllllittllent to the centr~ty of

(1) These;are the titles of two section in the Church Dosmatics, 111,1, ~nburgh, T. and T. Clark, 1958. See p.94tf. and p.228 ff. (2) Karl Barth, Church Doseatics, III, 1 , ~., p. 95. (3) Emil Brunner,!!!! Christian Doctrine 2! Gad , 22. cit.,pp~308-309. l '

election in the biblical revelati~ In part1calar~ the above raa1n~s

ua- tbat,though Brunner's concem for e'RP'lPli- ofteD directs bila

90

to place tstress on man and man's decision iD lI8l.YBU.on, bis prime dedication

as a theologian. fi1'llÜ7 rem81ns with the ceutraU.t".7' or God: ft The lRessage

of the Bible, therefore, is this: God, not.an, la the centre; tbis truth . (1)

must be expressed not only' in theorY but in p:ract:lce ••

A very similar sort of agreement ls rOlUld iD their respective

considerations of the relation of providence to e1ectlao. In ponder.1ng

the lReaning and nature of el.ection it is -17 eas.r to ~se a

c~rtain concept of providence and then to att_pt to subsuae ODe.'~.

deliberatlons on election underthat heading.Both Barth 8Dd Brunner

view this: as a danse~us procedure and otter a lIOSt cl8Yer. reJiedT: the,.

ins1st that pro~dence be See!l through election and DOt election thro~

proYideϏ. Brurmer writes:

In t't+~il in the God r8v1,&led in Christ, l lmov tbat God not CIÙ.1' 1 callao Ill' ~ W'. n8llle', but th~t &1so, quit. peraona'l.q, Be lwJ 1Dcludè~ ~ in' His pAIl to.r the world • • • • l 8IIl one whca Gad bu caUed to Himaeli '. and ~IW~ persOô&l. election is never to be severed trc.Bis Providence •••• : for 1;his 1s what Election lReans; and lt 1s 01111' t1'Olll .. th~ st&n4point of~ection tbatwe can think of Providence at aU. For tbere'we are'not ~hinking of th8 Providence of a de~t7 known to lB through _tap~dcs . but of the providence of God the Father , lI8de lmCJIfD to us in Jesus Christ • • •• (2) .

What Barth eaya on thie subject is Yirtuall,y ld~tical:" Na7

it not be tbat it ,ie as the electing God that He 1s the AJaight7 and IlOt

Cl) &lil Brumer, lIan in Revol~ .!m. ~., p.9. (2) Wl Brunner, The CihrJ.stian »octnne 2l. Creation!!!!l RecI_ption, .2.2. ~.,

p.156,- 157.

91

~ versa ? " (p.45). Barth attacks vith spec~ anger tbis notiœ

of God' s providence as naked might as i t is worked out in Calv.lnist

writings and in a mo4em-d&y' " disciple" of Calvin'sJ L.Boettner. 110

is at tbis point especial.l.7 tbat he sees a departure frClll and a betrqal.

of the biblical testiJllony. If the " shadow " of wbich he spaaks has to

do vith the hidden decreeJ then so DlUch of the energy am terror of the

traditional C,al:~st doctrine cames fran tbis present source which , (1)'

completel1' mi~~~rstands God's 8Overe1gnt1'.

The last reglon of agreement which we shall mention has

100 do with Barth 1 and Brunner' s interpretatiOll of evil as com:i.ng fraa

God' 8 "mn- villing'."- That iSJ 1fhey both have a dialectical. view of

both evU and reprobatiœ. Since we have dealt with this on page 65 of

th1s thesis we ,ahall, not go into this f~:ther except to say that perhaps

th1s issue more than &IV' other indicates how the1' can be so close and

1'et so far from, one another. We recall that Brunner criticized Barth

for not allowing preçisely tbis dialectic which . B8.rtla.' .~aequeQt:QI.."-pres~s

, with gr~at brilliance in hi s' chapter of " NotbingDesS;~Jf This~ ~da ua

once more of that which we have alreaqy reiterAted several times: that Barth

is not syatematic, and that he is inconsistent. 110 is difficult 100 declde

wbether tl11s is a virtue or a vice. Certainly ll&DY of Bnmnerts critic1m.s

(1) Calvin, however, considered providence along with creation. rather than pre4e,stinatiorij though Barth asks if œvertheless some of Calvin's ideat on eleC,t;lon are a product of a certain concept of sovereignty (p.i.6). B4rt;~, deniesthat Boettner is really follow1ng CalVin and claims that he~, in the tradition of the " older Retormed method as used by ~ius " (p.47).! .

ought to hold - as ve auggested in the last Chapt;er. But ao olten

they do not because Barth aimply goes on to fill in what appeared

to be gapa in earlier editiona of the Do_tics. If one were to COUle

92

to the conclusion that thia lack of a7stemi:aation ia a faulti it would

nonetheleas be helpful to realize that, perhapa, tbia ia the price to

be paid for a theological _t;hod that proceeds b7 bursts': of fresh

insights and a boDiJds in eno1'll0us eneru. Contemporar;y theological

thought bas thus been imaeasurab17 enriched b7 Karl Barth. 'In the light

of tbis acc~pliabllent, lack of 8;r8tem appeara a small priceto paye

This Appreciation, of course, ia not meant to suggest that there 1s ~

a7atematic coherance to bis thought. That th~ht ,certain:Q- would

~ot bear ex.i nation. Nor should it be implled that Barth would., not

~sh to defend lack of conaiatenc7 on grounds of the higher logic of : - .- .,.

the Word of God.

93

CHAnER SIX

CONCLUSIONS: WITH SOME GUIDEUNES FOR A CONl'mŒORARY STATBHENr OF THE DOCTRINE

OF ELFnTION

We have been attempting 100 aSBess the accuracy of Brunner's

critici8llls of Barth' s doctrine ot 81ection. After a brief surve,. of

Barth' s le~g tho~hts on 10bis subject we concluded in Chapter Two

that Brunner's rejection of Barth's central. thesis W&s fair: only a

highly speculative 1oheological exegesis of the Bible could support such

a position. Nonetheless, the debate over the role of Cnrist in election

W8S witness 100 the Christo..;centric nature of Brunner's position as well

as Barth's. In Chapter Three WB indicated that Barth was not a universaliBt,

but that probably he should be, given the nature of bis premises, and

especia.l.ly bis view of " double predestination." Just as Chapter Two

con.t,~tly made us ask questions about the Bible, so Chapter Three raised

the question of 1081c and consistency. The problem of Barth's " universaliSlzll"

i~ a peculiar way leada 100 tbis latter problem. We did Dot attempt 100

reach any C9nclusion as 100 the validity of ah unslstematic t~ology. It seems

that a proper evaluation of Barth will constantly be required 100 refer 100

a prior usesement of bis theologic.al _tliod. Chap1ïer Four, which dealt

with Reaponaibility in Barth and raised the question of the relation ~f

taith 100 election,really depended on the conclusions ar~ved ai in the

prior chapter. Ri~htly or wrongly, WB have accepted 8010 face value Barth's

94 assertions both that he is not a uni veraal1st aDd that he sees tai th as a necessary part ot sal vation.. In Cbapter FiTe ve indicated that the areas ot agreement between them we~ much lar&er tban the areas of

di.agreement. Seme ot the ditterences between th. are JIOre apparent than real, and in the midst ot &PT consideration of ctl.wraity :Ln' tbeirvie.~ we must point to an essential Si'liJarit7.·

Our examinat.i.on ot Barth' s theology ot election has constantl7 driven us to question Barth's basic theological. aethod. This, in turn, raises the question ot bis purpose. What exactq is be tl7ing to do in

the Church Dogœatics1 How viable is this procedure tbat i8 apparentq umdlling to draw obvious conclU8.~ons and wbich JlBkes Rch little attempt to be Bystematic? In the tinal. anal.y'sis these questions re~q. have to do vith the nature ot lite and the nature ot ultillate reaJit7. Perhaps this " realit7 " itselt has contradictions which it is DOt at all inadm1ss­able to allow in on~ ~s theology'l Should not theology IIirror lite and re~t7 ? l believe that the most penetrating ob.ervation on bis tbeological me~od was made by Barth himselt wen he wrote in bis doctrine ot Creation on the music ot Hozart. This music is itselt an u..portant clue to his approach to the9log. Bart.p writelÎ:

~Y' is it pOlSsible to hold that ~ozart has a place iD tbeology, eapecially in the doctrine ot éreation and &180 in eacbatology • ~'. ? It is' possible to give him. this pofition because he lmew sOllethiag about creation in ita total goodnes8that ~i tber the réal t athers ot the Church, nor 'our Retormera, neithe.r the orthodox nor the Liberals, Deither the exponents ot natural theolou, nor those heavily &lmed vith the_' Word ot Gad', and certainly Dot the Existentialiste, nor indeed, aDJ" otber great IlUsicians betore and atter him, ei1;.her kriow 'or can expres8 and ma:l.ntain as'he did • • • •

He he,rd the negati~e only' in and wi th the poai~i ve • • • .He never hearc;l only the one in abstraction'. • • •• he didnot pr04uce merely' his OWll music but that of creation •••• l œake this interposition here, befoN turDiDg .to chaos, because in the DPlsic of Mozart - and l wonder whether t~ a_e. can be said of any other worka before or alter ~ we have clear and convincing p~of that it is a· alander on creation to charge it vith cl share in chiAQs because it include8 a Yes and a No, as though .oritmtated to God on

95

the one aide and to chao8'on the other. Mozart c;auses us to hear that even o~ the latter &.1.d~., and therefore in it8 totality, creation prai8es its Ma8ter and is therefore pertect. Here on the thre~hold of our problem - and it is no amall achie~nt - Mozart; has created order for those who bave .ara to. hear, and he bas done it better thau. ~arq acientific. deduction coulci. This ls the point l lQ.ah to malee. (1)

:ta it saying too . !RUch t~at Barth,al,p, ha8. created order for

thoa~. who have ~ars to hear - m order which takea accourit of the

contr~ictiona of life but which is also firmly convinced of God'a

goodpess and love? At any rate, it becOllles cl~ar that Barth 18 , 1

not trying to write a syatematic theology in the ordin~ry sense ot

the word. He:oappëa;rs to 'believe that. the theological ~terprise ia too

great f.'9r that technique of By'stematization. Aa one pondera hia method

one comes to apprecb.te that : t~8. i. radical. theology in the basic

meaning of the word Il radical" - one that attempta to go 1;)ack to the

root,. Thus ·bis procedure pre8uppo8e8 a oertain viev of life·and of reality,

and this approach ia by no means eaaily deatroyed by negative criticism.

But its limitation is precisely tbat which va have' a1.read;y cl)arged his

hermeneutics with; that here we en~er a sphere where ~nal ~clsion becOllle8

impossible. But then, perhaps it i~ the case that everl theology resta " ~

on "ome .uch decision as to the ~ature of reaUty, and that thia decision

;n its t~rn pre~ents the struct.ural framework vithin ~ch.th8.tl.theo~ogy ia

(1) K.Barth, Oburch Dogmatig8, 111,3, 2J!.~., pp.29~299.

96

created •.

As one ponders the conclusions of this study", it seeu imporliant

to ask wbat guidelines emerge for a contemporar,r statanent of the doctrine

or ~lection ? It SOII18· ot Barth 1 s statements are doubttul, what pos~tj,ve

and rair~ certain cCl'lcepts eœerge trœ bis work? SaRe suggested

guidelines toll,?w.,

Perhaps the most helptul idaa ,in V8rr practical terme, is the

retus~ to use ( at any rate on the popular level) the ward Predestination

and to s~st1tut;e tor it the word election. This is exactlT what Barth

and Brwmer have done. The ward predestination is so encruated with ideas

which now have to be rejected that the ·very use ot the ward is a blo.ck

to meaningtul discussion. For too many people " predestination" means .' -

double pred,~tination vith its attendant thoughts ot determinillll, and

Gad exe.rcising bis providence in naked power. The shadow ot wbich

Barth spaaks ext.ends IlOt onlT, to the theology ot predestination but

to the actual use of the ward i~selt. How much more helptul .-- and how

much more bibliClÙ:- - is the word election. More c~early th8ll Il pre­

destination I!. 1t .indicates tha~ elect10,. is on a continullll vith covenant.

These are twa parts ot a. single entity. Wben one sees them. -mg~ther, it

becomes UllIIlistakeablJr clear t~t o~ 1s dealing vith an issu~ that is

near cr at the very heart ot the Bibl,e.

Another guid~line that seems virtuallT conclusive is

97

to regard election &s procesding traœ grace. Again, Bàrth and. Branner

are cCIIlpletely in aCQord in "this matter. Electlon doea not proceed tr~

providence, or aami.sclence, or froll ~hiDg else other th~, grace. This

grace ls not _ant to be seen as q~ sort ot principle apart troll. Jesus

Christ but ls rather to be consl~~~ as personitied ln HiII.. It ~h

has presented vhat ve must regard as an extreme interpretatlon of Ephesian

1.4, we must nevertheles8 real1ze that • bas recovered nov,for all time,

the thought that electlon ls in Christ ~ Wo tuture statement ot the doctrine

can be made witbout taldng lnto accouœ this tunel_ental thought. Both

Barth and Brumer ,are !DOst cCllcemed to ~ Cbr1st-centred in the1r exposition

of e,+.ectlon, and their united witness, ln a general wq, sess the 0lÜ7

possible ~out.e to thereco'Ve17 of electlon as Gospel. Alter all, wat la

the Gospel but Jesus Christ? The doctrine ot election ls pr1ma~ 10-

dicating that the roots of that Opspel ex;tiend tar back, e ven lnto pre-t . .

h1stor,y. At tlret it aesed daring tor Barth to spaak of election as r

~p'el ln the light ot the coptuslon the' doctrine c&used in !DOst people' s t

~n.d8. But as one r~ads histhoughts on the subject, Olle i8 grasped bl .. . . 1

the ~er lo~c ot his poaitl00, and even excited by the thougbt ~t

one could tum thia territying doctrine llJtio ft the S18 ot the Gospell.'! . "'. ~ t: '

Thus to see election as procee~ ~~ ~race ls &lso to seeelection , ,

as n in Chr1st~ ~1 and to think in tMs W&1 18 to put ontseU qn the ,road

to recovering the biblical doctrine ot election.

1 Yet another concluslon,whlchtind~ v1rtually 1JnWl111D~s support . ~ .

ln the literat~ on electlon, ;ls thethought that ~e elaction ot the

indi vidu&l should c~e on~ atter the election of thè cOlllllUlJity·. We made reterence to tbis in \Îhapt;er One but have not dctalt with it in the bocJ.y ot our tbesis chieny because B~r has not criticized ~ on tbis matter. l tbiDk that it can be 1ake,1 that bis sU·~tnce. on· tbia matter augpsts agreement; certainly tbis approach ia in keeping with the g~eral tenor ot Brwmer's description ot the doctrine. It ia this impression tbat predestination!!!e! individual election or reprobation t~t parti~ accounts tor the untortunate hi~ol"7 ot the doctrine. Once.lI01:'e, it· must be said that virtually on 8D7 tair reading ot the Bible the stresa in tbia mat'\er will be seen to rest on the collective aspect. 1.11 the 0l:d Testlllent the people as a whole ar~. chosen. In the New Testament th __ ~ocus ~s on the corporate entity ot the people or Christ, and almost never is it s~d that individuals are predestinated. However, this is by

no means ta sq ~hat there 1& no such thing as an individual purpose in election. There certain17 is, as tor instance in the electior;t of the patriarchs. But the perspective, gener$lly speaking, fram which elsction must be grasped is the camnunity.

If this is underatood"a vast~ healtbier: situation with regard ~o ~bis doctrine w;Lll emergs. No longer will the focus be upon the indi~dual, and upon his feelings. His assurance will not rest .upon a " feeling" which the HolT Spirit wiU communicate to him. 1 Rather it will be tound in the tact that Jesus Christ is the one " in whOill " he ia . .

elect and that this S8lle one ia fait~ to bis purpose and prcaiae. It thia ia ~.a~ped it ahould also lead one to a ruuer appreciatiœ

99 of the nature· of the Christian community. Atter aU, wbat is the purpose of the c~unity ? Could it not be said that this purpose resides in fultilling its calling, its election, and that this JlUst (1) be done in a corporate W87? Perhaps, th~, it is here tha,t a theo1ogy of mission must begin. Israel of old was meant to be a " light to the nations.1I • What is the Church meant to be? Perhaps it i~ meant to be part of the è1ec~ion of the One who bec .. e a servant, aad,thU8 is

meant to be a ",rvant Church •

It CM be seen, then, th&t treèlng election trom..a 801eq individuaJ.istic approach permits one to think creativel1' on. several .. tbeJHs that pertain to election. A theolo&V' of mission, in particular, ma;ywell have .its beginning here.

Yet another conclusion. which might be suggested as part of a modern statement of el.ection has to do with faith. Though B~tSr is more concerned than Barth with the role of faith, va have seen tha14 tbey . (2) hlt,ve an e"sentially &!p1m11ar comprehension of f41th" ~hey both state. election as Gospel and as a tàct of God's self-deter.mination. But they also accept the need for persona! belief. Brumer eSP!'Cial.l7 has enricbed our underetanding by dell,neating the need fox: person&1. 1.nvo~vem~llt in bellet. l believe that it ~t be atated as a conclusion that . both these factors are essential in a modem underatanding ot election: God ta selt-deteœnatiOD and ~'s beliet. The attempt; to relate the one to the other must always be done within personal categories, and tl)e tradition&! temptaticn. to yièld to a det~rminisœ must be resiated.As one ponders the inter-r~lation

(1) mail Brunner, The Christimi· Doctrine ot the Church. Faith, and the ConllUlimation.LOndQD, Lutterworth, 1962, writea OD p.23: " Theb&sI'. of the ~eaia Iles in. theeternal electian~~ (2) limil B1W\lle~, !!?!g., p.21l: ft. • • fa.1th • • • and it is this which ia the fundamental plan on w}û.ch our Do.tica are bui.lt~'1 .

between the tvo tact ors one readil1' apprehends the' ditticulty of

maldng g adequate statement. For that Nason Brunner ia helptul in insisting that thia relation is m generis. That i~, part ot our ditticulty lies in not having ~b1ng to which we might ccapare this relationsbip. liben one considers that OJ1e is now spealdng ot God

and of the relation ot man to G.od in taith, one should no~ Qe surprised tbat analogies donot CCDe read.ily to mind. Indeed, vould not such an ana.;Logy bei suggestive ot the analofd.! ~ 'which Barth 80 8tro~

detests?

Tbere is li ttle use, ( . makiDg a modern affirmation ~ election without tollcn4ng Brunner's exapl.e and .phatical17 denying. determini8lll. It must be realized that F8dest.ination has meant determinism in 80 1I.8Il)"

cases in the put. In the practical ~ense at least, Barth has been unwiae to leave bis presentation ot taith untU so late in bia Do_tic! • Ve recall that very little ia aa1d about this matter in Doeatics U,,'2. ,

,

It vould be ditticult to read ~h and Brwmer without caming a~ ~th ver" detinite ideas on double predestination. Brunner cl~arl)" re~.cts the notion. Barth accepts it,but so ra41callJ alter~ the co~cept that~t emerges bears as little relation to the doctrine b7 tbat name as does the day to the night. It appeara overwhel.mi~ the ca" that the argument against the traditional interpre1i!tion. ot double predestination is valid and that hence one must s~ak asld.nst it. Yet again, ve remind ourselves tbat when a persClll uaes the WON " predestination" he olten as not means do~ble ~destiDation. Ii

lQl

therefoN becGlll8a a matter 01 aOlRe lU"genC)" tbat ve declare O\1l'c5elw.

with UI11Iistakeable clarity GD tbia aubject: the traditional. conception , " (~

of double predestination must be ~oned aa ,unscriptural. When

one doe8 this, and acids to it tbe ~Rt.iOl1 that the hidden decree

ia al80 no langer tenable, it ,becœ.e.a. apparent· that one must depart. (2)

fran traditioD4,lCalvinia JIOst declsll:velT in thi8 doctrine. , ., . .

If' double predestination cannot be accepted , so al80

its opposite, UDiwraaliBlll, must be rejected. The ground8 of' that

rejection are scriptural. The 1fal' 01 interpreting the poa8iblity of

damnation ( and, con8equentl,y of t h~ e.xiatence of evil i taelf') m.q vell (3)

be the dialectical method that both Barth and Brunner use.

In concludiDg this gener.l declaratiCll of wh~t appears

necesa&r,y in a modern pr~aentation of the doctrine oi Glection ve vould . "1- .

acknovledge Barth and Brunnerls ~lief that thia ia the entrance into

understanding.'\il1e ,meaning of lUe. Brumer ha8 written 'that Il Either , (4)

lif'e has an, eternal meaning or it ha8 œ. meaning at all'." This

meaning i8 t~ ~~ the Christ: n The Son is the meaning of ~he w.qrld, ." ' ' (5)

for vhaa ~ ~ ~J;'f'e decisiœ determines and create8 the world'• li Thi8

me8sage .tinda .i1;~ centre in the doctrine of' election:.. Il To be ,ca;ued . "

from t'J .. II etend,1;7 of G9d 'to .. t~ cOllllluulon vith, God - that 1~ the

(1) See the chaptër ( n1lllb~r 2.3) on Il The Problem. of ' Douple PredeBtinatlonlU in :&!l;l.l Brun.ner '8 ~ Christian Doctrinè s! God, 22. ill,.

(2) See Appenclh 2 wherein Barthls vi_ of election la compared to t bat of' The Westminster Conteaiion of Faith.

(3) See p.3.l71. ot lbil B~erla The Chri!1;iag Docirine g! Gad, 22 • .Q1. (4) &nil B~r, ~., p.304. . (5) &nil B1"Qnner, ibid., p.308.

102

Gospel of Jesus Christ. Brietq, tbat is. the meaning ot the New (1)

Testament _ssage ot etemal e1ection·.... Barth has said much the

same tbing in vritiDg that Il To be determined by God' selection is the

tinal - but; real.l7 the final. IQ'Ste17 ot every hUlllan lite Il (p.43). We

have aJ.read,y referred to this cœviction ot Barth's.

Wbat are Barth and Brurmer sqing? They are OJCpl'8saing

their bellet that it election ia the b eginning ot God' a wqs with mank1nd

then it is also the end. It election has to do with God 's s4t-determination,

then it bas alao to do vith man's deteœination. The Bible,~ i~eed, is

explicit on this matter: Il For whOlll he did toreknOW, he also did pre­

destinate to be contormed to the' image ot his Son, that he might be the

tirstborn amoDg JDaIV' brethren n ( Ranans 8.29). God's selt-determination

is expreased in Christ. Han's destination la to be in Christ. and contormed

to bis image. Perhaps this WIq ot a tbeolog ot election can enrich' our

interpretation or those ditticult veraes in the Ep1stles ( ~ especial~

in Galati8D8 and ~e.siails ) which speak ot putting on Christ ( e.g.

Galatians 2.20, Ephesians 4.20, 24 ).

Finalq, it should be remarked, that in viev ot the

modern disiDterest in this doctrine, there .;:Sb:;;:Q:.;::ul=d a modern statementa

ot election : frcm pulpit, trom Church School classrooms, tram writers.

The !DOst indisputable tactor that emerges trom a stucV' ot Barth and

~~~ ..9A~M~1.~ . i:s.~~.!!~ belJ:.!t. :m..~b,e importance ot the doctrine.

(1) BDil BrmJner, !!!! Cl1ristian Doctrine 2! God, 22. 2ll., p. 305.

Ve bave seen that Barth bas become so COllvinced ot the essential

mature ot e1ection tor the elucidatlon ot Christian truth that he

103

bas all.owed the tom ot much ot his Dopatics to be sbaped bl" the

central inslght that Jesus ls both electing God and elected man. Wheu

cme ccmte.plates the tact that Barth and Branner, two ot the greatest

or tlftmtieth ceutUl7 theologians, have such a high estilllate Qt the

iIIportance ot election , it becOllles DQthing short ot astonishing that

the doctrine vithin the modem Church has tallen iuto a cClllparatlve

state ot neglect. It seems probable that sOIIle impoveriahment. in spiritual

values will be the result of such a procedure. However, lt must be

adIIitted that the past histor,y of the doctrine is so untortunate as to

llake the present neg1ect at least partlal.l.y underatandab1e and perhapa

eYeD 8lI:Cwseable.

104

APPENDIX ONE

18 RœANS 9-11 THE I&Qm .;.:CLASS==IC-..US-. OF PREDl!5TINATION ?

There are many parts of the Bible that speak of

predestination. For instance, a detailed consideration can be given to the Old Testament as a whole frOlll the viewpoint o~ election • It

could be indicated tbat tbe histor,v of Israel in eW17 ~a had a certain understanding of this doctrine. IJ.kewise, ID,any passages in the NEPW Teataaœnt . . and especially in John deal witb electian. Wby tben single out Romans 9 - li for special : attention ?

We do tbis simp~ because it b.!! been considered. as the locus classicus of that doctrine. This has been especially the case -. .

lQ,t\'lin the Reformed Cburches. One need r~ad Calvin's Institutes, Book III, C~Pter m, and Chapter XXII on~ very casual~ before this becomes eY14ent, tbougb it must be admitted tbat th~re are also to be found in

Calv.ln .' references to John and Ephesians. These chapters have

assumed special significance in the bistor,v of tbe doctrine because on a certain type of re.ading they do seem to be about individual electian and reprobation. Thus this section of' the Bible almost takes an the aspect

of b~~.q~ a test case. We canno~ present aD1' detailed . 'as~essmen~ of what the Bible as a ~ol,.means bye1.ection. But we can ad~ss aome basic

questions to these three chapters. Do the:r support or deDY' Barth 1 s theories ?

lOS

We must racall tbat Barth h1.mSBlt presents a detailed discussion ot the se chapters. For hiIR, the:r witness to the essential unit:r ot Israel (1) . and the Church together. Indeed tli.a., thEllle is the title which he gives to section 34, Il The Election ot the Cœmunit:r." In m:r estimation this is a sound· approach t~ RcluDs 9~, tor the th_e vith which Paul is grappl.11lg has to do vith an essenti&l~ mission&ry' problElll: the unbeliet ot the Jen. That is the question betore Paul, am the chapt,rs JllU8t be understood al? being within the tramework that it provides. In .Barth's opinion Israel continues to be the elected cammunit:r otGod (p.198. ~d p.203). Ye~ the Church Il • • • dravs its lite trcm Israel and Israel itselt lives in it. It is the reâ!iz~ion ot thalite ot the cœm~t:r .

1 •

ot God vhioh is Israel 1 s own dest1n:r " (p. 20S). Barth &lso reasons that these chapters do not speak ot a decretum absolutuœ, nor i8 the1r subject the electiOn or reprobation ot the individual.:

. . It vas perbaps ·the decisive exegetiè:al error ot the clusical doctrine ot predestinatiàn that - beiDg JaOreconcerned about the thingsot men ( althoUgb to their advant,qe)thân the things ot Gad - it thought to see the scope ot Rem. 9.1S in the personal situation and destin:r of Moses and Pharaoh • • • • ~t the point at issue here ia precisel:r hov the di~rist:r ot the-perso~ situation and destiqy ot Israelite. man, vhich ',ol1ditioned by the divine predetermination, ia so cl:1aracteristic ot the hietory"and lite ot the chosen peoole Israel, does not contradiot but oorresponds tothe election al Israel and the righteouailess of the mero:r ot its God (p.22l). . '

(1) George P~~er lU.chardson, I,raeJ. !!! i!!! Apostoliq Church, C~ridge, The· Universit:r Press, 8m8 Moriograph S~ries, Nunber lQ, :J.969, vo$ questlQJl the sort of ass~rtion Barth makes on P.300 .. '1 AllIsra!Jl ' is the Oc;Jllllunit:r ot thoae elected b:r Gad ••• both tran Jew and Gentil~ Il and :ret vould ligrae that " The Church has no existence ."art tran Israel and has no separate identit:r.1I ( p.130, Ricnardson).

Can one then, take Romans. 9 .. 11 as the ~ classicus

~f the doctrine of predestination ?

G.C.Berkouwer, an eminent Refonaed theologian, writes

that " There has been much discussion about the mearling of Rœlans 9-11. It is b4iting accepted more and more that this passage 1s not

concerned primari17 with establishing a ~~ praedestionatione as an ai).aly'sis of individu&! election ·or rejftction, but rather with

(1) certain problems which arise in the histor,y of salvation."

Alan Richardsonl,. an Anglican theologian and specialiat in New Testament studies, Wl"ites: " The clue to Romans 9-11, and to

what is soœetimes ( not v.r.v happ1~ ) called Paul's philosoPh7 of , • ~) \ ... LI. histor;y is to be found in the phrue ., J:;tJCT 1: ~" 0,,1/ 17'1' 0 r:Tz~~r

7"; (; t;; V • It means ' God' s purpose in histo17 which operates (2) • \. ;' b7 means of the princip1e ot election'." He argues that 1." ~ 0 Y",

(3) means ' election' in the sense of ' principle ot selection.'

Part ot the prob1em ot the interpretation ot the

8ec~1on as a who1e is that too olten readers bave aBslDed that e1ection

106

(1) G.C.Berkouwer, Divine Election, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1960, p.210. (2) Alan Richardson, A!! Introduction 12 ~ Theolo81 g! ~ !!!! Testament, Lo~don, SOM, 1958, p.273. (3) i~~4., p.273.

,";,1

•

here means individual election. The context, however, is clearly about Israel : Il Paul deals with Israel's rejection. He must show that this rejection which on the surface looks like a frustration of God's declared purpose in the Old Testament is neither unforeseen

(1) nor unprovided for in the di vine plan • " Paul maintains that .. • • • God is in full control of the cause of events from beginning to end. It.is he who establishes Abraham's line in the first in-stance (9.7), he who prefers Jacob to Esau (9.13), he who dete~nes who. sha1l be ' ~ people' or ' not ~ people' (9.25f.), he.who breaks off branches here, and gratta on others there (11. 17-24). The foundation principles of Paul's interpretation of the histor,y of Israel are a) that ' the gifts of God are i rrevoc able , (11.29), and b) that ' God has consigned all men ( including Israel) to disobedience that he ~ have Mercy upon all ( inc1uding Israel)' (2) (11.32) ."

Now it is clear that Romans 9-11 does de&l. with predesti~ nation. But that which has been taken to constitute it as the locus . .-classicus of that doctrine rests, in fact, upon a misunderstanding. The foc us is not, as olten supposed, the individual's election or reprobation. Indeed, the apparentparticularism of some passages ( e.g. Romans 9.13 11 Jacob l have loved, but Esau have l hated ,,)

(1) T. W .Manson, " Romans", in Peake' s Cormnentary 2!! ~ .ê:!J2!!, Matthew Black and H.H.Rowley, editors, London, Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1962, ~. 947. (2) ~., p.948 •

is open to other interpretations and is also counter-balanced b.1

other verses which suggest a much broader context ( e.g~ Romans 11.26

" ••• and so a11 Israel shall be saved" ). But nevertheless Romans

9.l~ along with several other verses in these three chaptersJia

difficult to interpret and has· a special relevance to one 1 s under;..

standing of the doctrine of election. What shall we underatand b.1

the apparently Calvinistic verses Romans 9. 13, 20, 21 ? Do they lend

direct support to a strict Calvinistic view of election?

We have Just referred to Romans 9.13, " Jacob bave~ (1)

loved but ~au have l hated .n This verse is often taken as an

example of indi vidual election. The suggestion is that some are pre­

destined to eternal salvation while others are predestined to ete mal

damnation. But what does the verse actually s~? It asserts aLmply

that God has chosen to extend the promise to Abraham through one

branch of the fanily and not the other. Nothing is said ot ete mal

saI vation or damnation. Tite words " love " and II hate" are, to. be sure,

extreme,'but they need be taken as·constituting notbing more than

examples of heightened anthropomorphism • Indeed as we examine the

lives of Jacob and Esau we observe the unusual happening. Esau became

a singularly prosperous man. Is that an example of Cod 1 s .. hate Il ?

w. Sanday and A.C • Headlam, The 'Epistle to the BomansJ ICC, Edinburgh, T • and T: Clark, Mô,pl246, WiteA: .11 •• l',.it ·ill. .qm.t.e clear that st. Pa'al throughout has in mind in each case the . descendants as weIl as the ancestors • • • :~ n .',? •

•

We have in this verse, then, an example ot God's purpose operating

through a principle ot selection.' As Sand. aud HNdl.am. write: " As

will become apparent later, Paul' s argument. Is to show that through­

out God's action there is running a ' purpose according to e~ection.' He does not theretore wish to say that it is mereq God' s love or

(1) hate that has guided Him." Thus whatever eIse one may see in

this verse one cannot take trom it an examPle of electlon-reprobation

in the sense that one is saved and the other dalmed through the (2) election ot God.

Yet another ditticult verse is Romans 9.20 n 0 man who

art thou that replie st against God? n C .H. Dodd caUs this, the (3)

weakest point ot the Epistle. Is it that? ls It an attempt to

justity the idea of election-reprobation as that is commonly.und~r-

stood? T.W.Manson writes his assessment in tbese terms:

In his eagerness to silence anything that looks like criticism of the Almighty, he ( Paul) bluntly insists that God. is not accountable to aqyone. But behind what looks like bluster, ,lies the deep conviction that in God.s:hands - and o~ there .:.- ' absolute power cannat corrupt at all; and that ooq b.Y absolute trust in God can a man discover for himsel.t that this ls so. (4)

(1) lli!!., pp. 246- 247. . (2) C .K.Barrett, I!!! Epistle to ,the Romans. London, A.. -and.C .• _Blaélc, J:9s.?~ ~p~183,writes: " For what Paul bas established is the free­dom of Gad in grace. It is imposai ble for bis Jevish interlocutor to repl.y: Very weIl! 1 am descended from Abraham. through Isaac ( not Ishmael) and Jacob ( not Esau); therefore, 1 must stand within the promise. To argue in this WBT ls to sq: "'od was free in the days ot the patriarchs, but i8 no longer free now ~ which is absurd." .. .• (3) C.H.Dodd, The Eiistle of Paul ~ th~ Romans, London, Collins, Fontana BoOks, 9l)(), p-:-'l~ (4), T.W.Manson, 2E,- ill-, p_94a~

•

:uo

Pierre MaUl'Y' s interpretation also runs counter to Dodd\' s:

This is not, as it is ordinarilY interpreted, the tyrannical order of the sovereign using his power to impose silence; taking the whole context into considl'ration" it simpl;v' means: " 0 man" who art thou to set thyself up against my mercl, thou who belongest to the very people who l suifer and save!'? ~'U)

Maury also suggests that thi s should remind us of the

parable of the labourers hired at different times all of wQom

received exactly the same wages. He also reminds us of another verse

in this connection: " For Gad bath cèmCl.u4eœ 'tihat,ailldin/unbelief

that he might have mercy upon all." (Romans 11.32). In c~ent on

Romans 9. 17" 18" dealing wi th the " hardening" of Pharaoh' s heart

Maury writes: " the will to harden is not in Gad equivalent to the

will to save • • • • We are not required to balance the one against

the other. The grflat misfortune and sanetimes unfaithfulness of the

c1assic doctors was that they thought that in this balance" in this

paral1e1ism, they were asserting the fulness of the positive grace." (2)

Another difficu1t verse that has occasioned ~uch', comment

is ~mans 9.21: Il Hath not the potter power over the ~cl.q 1: Il,", '~ " ','

The suggestion has been made that this also implies election -reprobation

(1) Pierre Maury, Predestination, London, ,SOM, 1960, p.59. A comment that Karl Barth makes in the Foreword of this book is of special relevance to this thesis. Barth w ri tes o~ Maury: Il One can certainly sq that it was he who contributed decisivel;v' to giving my thoughts on this point their fundamenta1 direction. Il

(2) i,lli., p.20. The reader is alao referred to the interpretation of Sanday and H,ad1am, ,22. ill,.,in which they write: " We must not soften the passage. On the other hand we must not read into it more tban it contains: as, for example" Calvin does. He imports various extra­neous ideas, that Paul speaks of election to sa1vation and of reprobation to death • • • Il p. 258.

•

and that while election may be s&id to he of grace few would care (1)

to claim that reprobation is also of grace.

In this verse Paul m~ well have had in mind Jeremiah 18.6, " 0 house of Israel, cannot l do with you as the potter? saith

the Lord. Sehold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, 0 house of Israel." The verse is clear reference to God's authority in history especial~ as exercised over Israel. But this does not Mean, therefore" that in the view of Script ure: men and wanen are like lumps of clay. the emphasis is on the potter" but ,interpreters have olten shifted the emphasis to the clq. The analogy ifl more ~bout potters than about pots and this analogy is not as brutal or intolerant as so often thought. Indeed, is it brutal or intoler~t at aIl? Alter all the potter does make pots to sane purpose and therefore the analogy teaches us that God has a purpose in his creation as well as control over it. Jeremiah 18.3 expresses this thought by implication: ". 'l'hen l vent down to the potter's house and behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel as seemed good to the potter to make it. " We must '&180. remind ourselves of a~ther

significant verse in this sarne ch~pter of Jeremiah , narnely, verse 8 vith reference also to verse 10 : " If that nation against whom l have

wonounced turn from their evil, l will repent of that evil that l have

(1) F.F.Bruce, 2.2. ill., p. 19.5, writes: " Cf. 2 Timothy 2.20. ~ere however the vessels are made of various materials and those which are ' to dishonour' are simply designed for less noble or ornamental ( but not necessari~ less useful ) purpose than those which are • to honour'."

•

thought to do unto them • • • • If it do evil in mf sight, that it obey Dot ~ voice then l will repent of the good wherewith l said l would benefit them. Il Both in Jeremiah and in Romans we see the principle of selection in action. If there is arbitrariness, it is the arbitrary nature of mercy and of grace. H.H.Rowley has commented on this idea in the following words:

l have always found it bard to understand w~ it should be supposed that there is anything morall3 repugnant in God. 1 S electing one nation for one purpoae and another for another, or one man for one purpose and another for another. It is probably large~ because of the notion of election to heaven or to hell, which men have introduced into this question. The vessel of dishonour ia thought of as a child of hell. (1)

For these reasons we may conclude that Barth's doctrine of election finds general support fram a study of Romans 9.-11. Here we discover a special zeal for the sovereignty 'and th~ freedan of Gad. This zea1 Barth shares tota1ly. But unlike the Re!onned fathers this does not 1ead him to be1ieve in double predestination as that tenn ia normall3 understood. 01early, here election is s~en to be

of grace. So &1so, we must understand that Romans 9-11 is not the locus c1assicus o~ predestination for its main theme is not individual -

. election and reprobation. The theme rather is God 1 S freedom in gra~

and the essentia1~ practical misaionar,y prob1em Paul faced through the unbelief of the Jews. Barth is correct, we believe, in departing

(2) fram the traditiona1 Oa1vinistic interpretation of Romans 9-11.

(1) H.H.Rowley, !œ Biblica1 Doctrine 2!. bi1ection, London, The Lutterworth Press, 1950, p. 41. (2)Barth ' s interpretation seems general~ to be favoured by the 1eading commentators. We list here, briefly, seme of the main observations of distinguished interpretera of Romans •

•

(2) ( Continued from previous page) Emil Brunner, The Letter !&. ~ Romans, London, The Lutterwort.h Press, 1959, P-:s7, writes: Ilot a double decree ( predestination) one leading to eternal lite and the other to etemal damnation this passage teaches just as litt1e as aqy other part ot Hol1 Scripture."

C .K.Barrett, 22.. cit.,P. 185, writes: Il Mercy ••• is the key­note ot chapters 9-11." In an observàtion ot special interest to readers of Barth, he writes: Il It is important to. recall here that the seed of Abraham contracted till it becaœe ultimately Christ ( see 6.11). This means that election does not take place ( as might at tirst appear from Paul's example) arbitrari~ or tortuitousl1j it takes place a1w~s and only in Christ. '.L'hey are e1ect who are in himj they who are e1ect are in him ( ct. Ga1atians 3.29). It is fai1ure to remember this that causes confusion over Paul's doctrine ot election and predestination ."

F.F.Bruce, 2,2. ill,., p. 190, CODDDents on this passage as a who1e: " It is a pit Y that in sane schoo1s ot theological . thought the doctrine ot election has been tormulated to an excessive degree on the basis ot this preliminar,y stage in Paul's present argument.without adequate account being taken ot his turther exposition ot God's purpose in election at the conclusion of the argument ...

Sandal" and Head1am, 2E. m., pp. 249- 250, comment on this passage as tollows: .. The Jew believed that his race was joined to God bl" a covenant which nothing could dissolve, and that he and his people alone were the centre ot~ God's action in the creation and government ot the world. This idea Paul combats. II Paul broadens his Jewish conception ot e1ection in these chapt ers : .. The world, not Israel, ls the tina1 end ot Gad' s action. Thi's is the key to the exp1anation ot the great ditticu1ty ot the rejection ot Israel. 1I

KARL BARl'HIS DOCTRINE OF ELlOOTIQN CONPARED TO THE TEACHING OF THE

W&C)TJl[RSlm OONFESSION OF FAITH

It is probable that the classic expression of

the doctrine of p~dest1D&tion in' the EDglish - speaking world

is iound in !!!! Wgstmiefte r Confession 2!~. The importance ot

this Confession in the Reformed Churches, and in Chr1stendcm. in ge.neral,

has been very great indeed. It is, however, cClllllan lmowledge that. the

Confession gives great prOlli.nence to the doctrine of predestination.

The place of that doctrine within the' Confession has sub8equent~

given the Retormed Churches a certain iiuge in the e;yes ot the world

that is ( l believe ) less than desirable. It is not untrue to sq;

that Dl8lJ1' people outside of the Refomed Churches k.no'N' thiâ and

little more about them. It becaaes, theretore, urgent for members , .

ot the Reformed Cburches to make a modem asse.Bllent ot predestination.

It seau tll.at a uaetul vay ot doing this is to maJœ a compariaon ot Barthie

teachings vith the ConteBsion.

While the Calatession continues as: the subordinate

standard ot several BetoNed Churches, it must be admitted that the

relation of Dlinisters to that standard is' increasingly' tenuous. The

•

•

115

Confession is c1ear~ seen as a standard vbich ia subordinate to

Scripture and through this open door 118DT. pl'Obabq the majorit7,0f'

Canadian Presbyterian ministers ~h 01Ù1' too eager~. A contemporary

study' of' the Confession widely in use in both Knox College and The

Presbyt.erian College goes to the explicit length of' asserting the

f'ollowing:

The awesome doctrine of' the' double decree' or • double predestination,' wbich has o.t'l;en been regarded as t he distinctive f'eature of 1he Retormed Faith, is no longer he1d b7 the Preebyterian Churches in ttle . f'Ol"lll in whioh it is set f'orth in this chapter. (1)

M1' own experience withiD The PresbyterianChurch in

Canada decidedly coincides vith that opiDion. But noœtheless the tact

remains that tlrl,s Confession remains as our 01Ù1' subordinate stan~

For these reasons it is dif'f'icult to cODYe,1 the precise importance of'

comparing Barth's news ~th that of' the Confession. In. a vq it is so

very important. But in another var it is to enter a battle which very

f'ev indeed seem interested in f'ighting.

Barth emphatio~ places himselt within the general

Ref'or.medposition because of' that traditlon's clear and uncaœp~sing

emphasis on the sovereignt7 of' grace. On tbis matter he hearti~

embraces the Ref'ormed tradition expressed in Calvin and virtually aU

of' the classic Retormed Confessions. Barth and ~ Westminister Confession ~ ~ are in strong accord that election le of' God's tree choice.

For grace to be sovereign it must also be f'ree. This is the. great

point of' agreement between Barth and the Canf'ession.

But the dif'terences soon are ~ too evid.ent. Vlrtually f'ran bis opening paragraph Barth is detelDlined t 0 Pl'Ocla1m: e1ection as Gospel, indeed the SUIIl of' the Gospel. Election. f'or· bill :11 seen .as

(1) George S.Hendry, The Westminster Confession !2!: Tod&.John KiIox Press, Riohmond, Virginia, 1960, p.Sl.

•

•

light and not as darlmess, as joy, and not as gloom. And indeed, this

ia t he a~mosphere ot hia exposition ot the doctrine. It was because

ot such an atmoaphere and because ot his insistence an the primacy

ot g race that Ber1.<Quwer could write ot l!!!. Trlumph .2! Grace !!! ~

Theo1ogY 2! ~~. But it seems tbat the exact reverse la, true

ot the Confession • While it c1early' speaks ot grace; the a1omosphere

is one ot gloom. and dread: Il The, rest of manld.nd God was pl.ease~

according to the unsearcha,ble counse! of his own will ••• to. pass

by and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their stD:,and to the

praise of his glorious justice " (I~I, 7).

It is generally thought that the Confession teaches

double predestination. Whi1e it is true that 1ts posltion.CQllles ,~ery "". ,1

close to that and indeed t he end result is tantamount to double pre­

destination, nonetheless, strictly speald.ng~ one bas t 0 admit that , . :(1) , .

it does not teach t~at doctrine. It does not speak of reprobation

and goea only' so far as to speak of Il ••• others fore-ordained to

everlasting death " (~II~2). But that ia indeed strong enough for the

modern reader. The contrast between this view and that ot Barthls ls " .. : .

very great~;. The whole thrust ot his theor;y of Il double predestination"

is exactly the reverse of this. For him Christ ls the one who bore the

rejectlon of the rejected. And w~le it is clear that he,does not espouse

universalism or the doctrine of the apokatastasls his the~r,y n~verthe1ess

(1) Phill1p Schaff, !!!! Creeds 9! Christendom, Vol~IJ lIew York, Harper~ 1931~ p.770~couments: "It doee not teach ••• that Go$l, eternally foreordained men for sin and aa.nat10n; ~ut it does't,ach that out of the tallen mass of corruption God elected a definite numbe.r ot men to salvation and ,1 passed b,y the rest leaving th~'to the just puniehment tor their sine ~:! This 1s severe and harsh epough, but; very,ditterent tram a deoree ot eternal reerobation WhiCh tenn oocurs nowhere in the Cont~ss10n."

•

•

11'l

brings bi.a as close to those views as it is possible to come without

actu.aJ..lT adopl;ing them.

The Confession speaks ot predestination not under that

heading at all, but rather under the ;,I.:tJ..tlo· .. Of God's Eternal Decreea."

Tbis is a.,st accurate heading tor it brings us to that which is reall1'

at the heart ~ the Calvinist doctrine ot election and that whicb Barth

sees as beiDg virtuall.y' the main toe ot his own theory. While Barth may

not baYe sutficiently appreciated that even forthe Calvinist position

electioD is of grace yet tbere is still reason for believing that his

attack an the hidden decrees and hence on the Uonfession is well-tounded.

Again. the criteria are biblical. Barth' s position in ess,ence i~ that

the Conteasion and all positionswhich.argue fo~a hidden decree are

unbiblical.. He develops this by assessing tbe biblical Interpretation

of the rol.e ot Christ in election.WhUe our conclusion was· that he goes

too far in see1ng Jesus as .. Electing God and Elected Man," his argu. -

ment tbat there is DO other decree apart trom that of Je~us Ubrist is

both convincing and biblical and indeed 1s convincing because i t is

biblical. Be reaches back to the supposed primal decision ot God

which presuaably constitutes the basie ot election and dsœands to know

1t Gad bas a.u;r other will than his will in Christ. He dlaims that Christ

!! God1s decision, and develops stronglY and dec1sively the viev that

grace meaus tbe grace ot God in Jesus Christ. l regard tbe"Confess10n's

separation of the decree ot God trom Jesus Christ as the bli'sic error

~ot o~ in its doctrine ot election but in tbe entire approach to the

Christian Faith. This, more than anything else, l beli~ve, accounts tor

•

•

.118-the part:l.cularl;v cold tone one finds in it •

The presentation ot the Confession also does not

really allow for h\Jll8ll treedcm despite verbal protestation., to the

contrar,y. V~rball,y it speaks of the libel"ty or contingency .ot second causes ( III,l),but the tacts ot its approach to those thinge which constitute h\lllan treedOla b.l1.· .. th. wrda. The Confession asserts that man has lost the abUity ot will to 8D1' spiritual good accOllpaoying

salvation ( XI,3). In the chapter an " ot Eftectua! Calling " we read

that Il TJ:ds effectua! caU is of God la free and special grace &lone, not fran anything at al1 foreseen in man, who is altogethe~ passive therein, until being quickened and renewed b,y the Ho~; Spirit • • • .. (XII,2).

(1) Barth &lso protests against synerg1811l. HA speaks ot

(2) r hisview of election as embracing irresistible grace. But the portrait of man that emerges in bis writings is not that of an autcmaton who is incapable ot decision. In spite of bis position with reg~d to synergl.sm we have already noted that in a tater edition of the Doseaticshe allowa for faith as a human reaponse and J'et attempts to retain ~e sovereignty (3) ~ ot grace. This is also clear in bis attempt to d~scribe the .detel'Dlina-tion ot the rejected. They exist in the sphere ot Godls no~-wil1ing. Judas 1 act of betray&l vas indeed his action but was yet oye~ruled by

(1) Barth states: Il Th~re is no SJIlergiSll ot &D1' ld.nd in tpe histor,y of Jesus Christ's election, tor in this hiatory neit.her the sin ot man nor the prayer of man cau play the part of ah autonomous rqster,y, as man 1 a decision camplementar.v to Gad i s Il (p~194). (2) Barth speaks of Il ••• the irresistible divine grace ot Jesus Christ " (p.477). , -(3) In Church Do)matic8, IV,l, ~.cit., he writes that taith is a " tree human act " (p. 7,7). - .

•

•

God. At the point at which he was DIOSt in rebellion against- God,

at that moment he IIOst !ully accOillpliahed the will of God.

Thus there is a certain ~ement with Barth and the

Confession, but the end rasult genuinely does ditfer. For Barth, grace

is sover~ign but there is considorable evidence that he se~s man as alive

and parti:cipating in" faith .• SCIlle mq wish to argue -~ a, wa have

already ~uggested - that this is inconsistent on bis part. But the

point, at this juncture, l's that the concern is present in~,Barth ,and

absent in the Confession. There is here an area of real contrast. One

JIl&7 well ask if Barth sutficiently allows for the deve10PJll!'llt of a . (1) \

viable doctrine of man. Material for debate on both sides of that

question seem to be there in his writings. But the ~odern,re~~r

will probably not even allow that there is room for debate of t,he

same question with regard to the Confession. While admit,teaJ,y Dl,odernity "

is not the sole criterion of theo10gy~ yet it must be ackno.wledged that

the Confession presents us vith what can only be termed a qu"stioq~le

doctrine of man. At any rate , here is a point of cClltrast.

1

(1) The reader will recognize that we are now considering Bart~an anthropology. In this regard l would quote twica fram Arnold Cœe~ s An Introduction ~ Barth' s Do~tics ~ P~eachers, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, ~J. On pages. 151-152 he writes the following: Il The relativ1zing of his·tor,y ~n the Dosmatics assumes its most problematic form in the" placing. of a question mark over the reality of man as a responsible subject distinct .tram God. In fact, the adequacy of Barth 1 S anthropOlogy will probably be the main point around which the uncertainty and debate will revolve for sane time into the future. He has franklY admdtted that he approached the prob1eœ of cre~tion with some reluctance •••• Il On p.4J2, Canelmtes: ", ~IS Spirit does not operate mechanically or by infusion toward man, but God deliberately preserves a distance fram man so that 'there c~ be dialogue, intercourse, and drama between them." The first q~~ation indicates the fact of debate on this matter; but the second,! l believe, indicates that t he contrast between Barth and the uonfession is a real one.

•

•

The Confession in the ver.r ACt ot stressing the

freedom ot divine grace inadvertantly brings into question God's own treedOlll: :r l!.)'! GOd fram al1 eternit)" did ••• ordain whatsoever cOlles to pass n(IIl,l). Barth, on the other band, strongly' objects to a

mechanical exposition of the will of God. He endorses Peter Barth's

" ." contribution in this regard to the Congres International de~heo1ogie (1)

Calviniste he1d in Geneva in 1936. For Peter Barth" ••• God . (2) has entered into a ~steriousl)" living relation to us men." Karl

Barth Agrees that this is an improvement over a mechanistic inter-(3)

pretation of the divine will. For him, predestination" ••• did indeed happen in the bosaD of Cod betore 811 t~e, but for.this ver,y

l reason it happens and happens again before every moment ot.time "

(p.191). The tailure of Calvin and of Calvini8lll vas not in baving an insutficiently' deve10ped notion of the Il liv:l.ng Il factor of God's will.

l . It vas rather Il • • • due to their non-adherence to the rule that the

will of God as such., and therefore predestination" must be, sought and found only in the work of God., i.!' • ., in the core and purpofJe ot that vork., the name and person ot Jesus Christ Il (p.191). In other words God's decree is not bidden; it is Christ htœse1t.

(1) See pages 188-194 ot the Church Dosmatic8. II,,2, t~r a dis~u88ion ot this matter. " . (2) ibid., pp.169~190. (3) ~ • ., pp. 190-191 •

•

•

Some would wish to argue that the Contession llmit •

hlDDan treedOlll only' to those ,things whieh aeeOlllpany salvation. The

will to good is not lost. The will to good vith re8ard to those th1ngs

vhieh bring salvation is (n,3). 1t might even be pointed out - and

eorreetly - that in eleetion Barth gives no role to ~ whatsoever,

tor eleetion is a transaction within the Trinit y • And yet,as Barth

goes on to explain how man is involved in that eleetion; through taith,

elearly a dialeetical element, not alvays appreeiated a.s being. present

in Barth, is stressed. The Confession bas within it 'a terri1)ing eonsiat­

eney. Within certain eras ot history tbis cOIlsisteney and this.logie c

must have been overwhelmingly attractive. But th1s que8~i~.brings us j

yet &gain to a matter whieh ve tind reeure with trequenct, ~ ~e~ 1 , .

the que~tion ot the role of human logic in an. interpretation of div1rie " .

election.This:.;.Ye .. have·!al.read,- discussed withinthe tiret dhapteahni..<:J·;; .' , .' .

ot this thesis. Barth 18 not Marly sc. ~erable a~ he~ appear,s.;on a

tirst readil1$. On bibllèal, grounde, wbere1n we discover no parallel

between' election ~nd reprobation, on grounds Gt a certain !'. higlu~r':

logie" wherein one questions most seriously the application ot hllllan

logie to revelation, and on grounds that the Bible speaks very, clearly l

ot human involvement in the aet ot taith, we cao side w:lth.Barth's . . .'. t ,

interpretation more ealiily th~ that ot the Oonte8s.io~'.e, and m~tain

th_t this is a point ot eontr~st.

The Confessi,o.n" eontrary !to some popular no~.~~ns does

speak ot eleetion .. in Christ. 1I Ve read ot Il taith in ChrilStn and

.. redeemed by Christ .. in 11;I,6. In U1,5, ve speeitieally are tolà

that the eleet are" eho'sen in Christ... Yet it cannot be àenied that '.' .

•

•

122

while the seeds of a slgoitlcaDt concept are present in these words,

theT lIere not aUoved to gl"UIf. The wrds are there, but the concept

as a developed idea 1Ihich 1IIIderglrda and structures the, doctrine ot

eleotion :lrs not to be ~0UDd. For Barth, of course, the concept ot

election-II in Cbri~· ta the Ye17 kq to hisunderstan!i1n&.of the

doctrine. 1 ••

Virtua1.l7 Hel'7 page 01 Barth' s w riting on elect.ion breathes

the spirit of ccapassioD éIId light and JOT. Election is. good news,

a. CS pel , for hiIIl. ID the usential.ly' sombre atmosphere of the

Oonfession election ia quite as threatening as it is reasslU"ing. ,If

one is of the elect th_ the doctrine comes as llght. But even then

it appears that aSS1U'8DCe or one's election 1s regarded as. uncertain

and it would be dist.ressi.lr8,to Bq the least,to contemplate how lJWJ1' r

m&y' have been n pused br.- 'lima the atmosphere is a Poiut"ot contrast

as. welle For Barth, it is ligbt. For the OonfessionJthe~ eno impression

is that ot a shadov --perbapa 1d.th strealcs of light here and ther.e -

but ahad~ nonetheless. ODe,perhaps unupeçted, ray of light is the l

Oonfession la viev ot lntaata who die at b1rth or shortly af'ter Qirth. ,

In XII,3, we read: - .Bl.ect iDtauta, dying in infancT, are l'egenerated

and saved 'b7 Ohrist tbraa&h the Spirit, who worketh when • where and

how he pleaseth. 50 also are all other elect pers ons who ~~ incapable

of being outwardly called b,y the ainist17 of the werd." l.his, is

consistent with the CanlessioD's UDderstanding of the ~ivipe decrees.

Yet even here one vonders about the non-elect infants who die and the

non-elect persons who ter nal p8,JChological or secial rea.ons do not

i.

•

•

or cannot hear the Gospel. As more and more the Church comes tG. live

with the insights of the social s~ences,ps1Chological and,seciological

determin~ta et belief are freely admitted. : But. if these anal1'ses

apply tobelief J they apply also to unbeliet .' '1'his simple thought seems

to have occurred to surprisingly tew people, and yet its rel~vance to

one' s dectrine of election ia of great imp.rtance. These, "fter all,

are the insights of today •. These, as well as our interpret~tion, ~f

the Scriptures will determine our doctrine of election, for the issue

is just that which Barth states: can we believe the doctripe and in

what fom? The modern reader will fim the Confession' s gQ~tn.lJe

quite simply unbelievable becauae it clashes with too manYt.insights

that the social scientists have brought to bear en thé psyçhology of . . 1;,

belief and unbelief. Perhaps not.hing is 50 ebjecticmable il1 the COD­

fessionlthan i~s .. very cold att~tud.e tG) the fate of the no~el~ct. At

the very' peint At, which it should

abatract theology::

evinee concerD~~t reClort.s,.~o

The rest ot ~nd, Gad was pleased, accordin$ to the uns~a~ch~ble COUDS el ot bis cam will, whereby 'he eJttendeth or ~tholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, tor the glor.y of his sovereign power over ~s cr~atures, to pass .by, and to ordain them t. dishonour aild wrath ~or th~ir sin, to 1ï~e praise ot his glorious justice. ( 111,7). .

But '\;he sombre atmesphere is quite rightly analyaed by Barth as its

separation of the decrees trom God's decision in Christ. Here the

Contession can be me.t on' its ownground, that ot Scripturalinterpre~

tation. We, have alreaqy given reasons 8upporting Barth andcontradicting

the Contession.

The last contrast between Barth and the Confession to which

we ahall refer is that the latter almost·tetall1 re8tr~ct8 its conception

of predestination to individuals. Barth speaks of election in Ohrist

tirst, then the election of the camilunity, and ~ lastly of the

election of the individual. The root of this clear contrast ldll

probably go back to different interpretations of Raaans 9 - ll.

The Bible provides little evidence that will permit a solely or even

a primarily individualistic interpretation of election. Ve have already (1)

given reasons for rejeeting a narrowly individualistic approach to eleetion.

(1) It is intriguing to note tha:t a study prepared by The ~cles of Faith Conmdttee of The Presbyterian Church in Canada totally accepts Barth 1 S

recœstruction. The s tud1', never official~ adopted, was prepared . in t11e 1940ls and is obtainable in An Historieal Digest of the Wor~ !u Articles 2! Faith, 1942 - 1967, ~he PresbyteriaïîChurch, in ëâiiada, ;0 w,ntord Drive, Don Milla, Ontar1o. l should want to criticize the atudy for accepting Barth in an almoat uneritieal fashi9D_ Oe~ there is this 1,0 the atudy: that here we have an example of a cClllDittee almost tota~ dominated by the thought of Barth on a given subjeet.

~t ia of interest that the Confession 2! 11J!!L of the United Px-eabyterian Chureh in the United States eontains no, reterenee at ~l to F.dest~~io .. though, being structured by the them.e of reconciliatiœ, Many of the purposea of election are present. Th~t is, œe coUld euily m~tain that we are elected ,to be part of Godls reconeiling ccmnunity. HOW8Vef the silence of the ~OI'lfeasion El. 1967 o~ this subject st,ands in total and utter contrast with the position .ot II!!. West§.uster Contess1sn 2! Faith _ . . ..

Barrett, C.K.

Barth, Karl.

Berkouwer, G.C.

Bernard, J.H.

Bettis, J.D.

125

BIBLIOœAPHI

II!! Epistle ~ ~e ReDan" London: Adam and . Charl$s Black, . 57.

II!! Gospel. According ~ st. John. London: S.P.C.K., 1962.

Cburch Dopatics. Eci1n~gh: T·~· and T .Clark, l,l, '11,2, III,l,2~ 3, IV; 1.1948-1956.

HOI i Changed ~ Mind. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, ~.

! Shorter 9011111lentarz !m Romans. London: SOli, 1959. .

The Hwaanitz of God. Richmond, Virginia: John KiiOx Press, 19637

Il A Theolo~cal Dialop.1I Theo1olll!29!Z. V.19, 1962-1963. .

Divine Election. Gran~ Rapids, Mich1aan: BenDans, 196ô.

!!!! Triumph. g! ~ !a Y!!. Theo1ogy g!Karl Bsth. Grafus ~pids, MichiJan: Fc6rdauuui;ï9S6.

Il!!. Gospel A9cord1~ ~ ~. Y0hn. IeC. Edinburgh: T.and T. Clark, 19 •

"Is Ktr1 Barth a Univers$list ?". th. Scotti5lb Journal g! Theolosy. Dac8D1a.r, 1967. .

Bouillard~ Henri.

BNaten, Carl E.

Brown, Colin.

Boettner, Loraine.

Bruce~ F.F.

Brunner, PlD1l..

Brunner, »dl and Barth, Karl.

Calvin, John.

126

Karl Barth. Volse II. Aubier: .Éditions ~aigne, 1957.

History !Bè He~eneutics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966. .

Karl Barth and the Christian Kessage. LOiicion: The TyDdale Press, 1967.

The Reto~ed Doctrine of Predestination. Piirladelphia: The PresbTteriai1 and Retol'lD.ed Publishing COIIlJ)&ll1', 12th ad. ~ 1965.

The Epistle ot Paul to the Romans. , LOndon: The TY"nd"""8ïë PN~ 1963.

The Christian Doctrine ot God. Dogmatics 1. London: Lutterworth~ 1900.-. .

The Christian Doctrine of ,Creation and iidemption. Dogmatics' n. London: Lutter­worth, 1960.

The Christian Doctrine ot'the Church, Faith iiid Consummation. Dogm&tië'SIII. LonciOii':"' Lütterworth~ 1962. ! .

The Latter to the Romans. London: Lutter­worth, 1959:--

Truth !! Encounter. London: séK, 1964.

!!!!! i:!! Revolt .London: Lut~erworth, 1962.

"Observations on Karl Barth 1 s 1 Doctrine of Kan'''~. the Scottish Journal 2! Theolop. no. 1951.

Natural Theology. London: GeottreT Bles, 1946.

Institutes 2! Y:!! Christian Religion. Vs.I and II. Henl"T Beverd1ge, transe London: James Clarke and Co., 1957.

Calvin" John.

Cairns" David.

Camfie1d" F. W.

Come" Arnold.

Parker" T .• H.L.

Cunliffe-Jones" H.

Dodd" C.H.

Farre1ly" M.J.

Fo1e1'" G.

Funk" R.E.

Godse;y" John D.

127

Concer.ning ~ Eter.nal Predestination of GOd.Trans1ated and with an Introduction b7 M.S.Reid. Londœ: J .Clarke and Co." 1961 •

.. The Theo1081' of làil Branner." the Scottish Journal 21. Theo1oq. 191.8.

Reformation 01d and New ( A Tribute to Karl ~). Londc;':Lütterworth" 1947. --

S! IntrodUction ~ Barth 's Dopatics m Preachers. Philadelphia: ThEl Westminster Press" 1963.

Il Karl Barth and the Fourth Gospel." Studies !!! ~ Fourth Gospel. F .L.Cross" ed. London: A.R.HOwbr~" 1957.

"Is the Use of the Word ' Predestination ' Real:q Necessary in Theo1081' 1" the Scottish Journal 2! Theo10R. 1950.

I!!!. Epist1e 2! ~ ~ ~ Romans. London: Collins" 1960 •

.. Ephesians." Il!! Abingdon ~ COlIIIlentarx. New York: The Ab1ngdon Press" 1929.

Predestination and Free Will. Ha1.71and: The NtnmIaIl Press" 1~.- -

.. The Catholic Critics of KarLB&rth." the Scottish Journal 21. Theo10gz.1261..

,

Lansuage" Hermeneutic, g Word ~ QsS. New York: Harper and Row" 1962. _

~ Barth's Table ~.the Scottish ~ournal of Theology Occasional. Papers". u.~r 10" Edinburgh: OUver and Boyd" 1963.

.. The Architecture of Karl Barth 1 s 'Churcl1 Dogmatics'." the Scottish Journal 2! Theo10gy, 1956.

Harnack, Adolph von.

Hartwell, Herbert;.

Hendry, George S.

Herzog, F.L.

Jacob, E.

Jocz, Jacob.

Jones, H.G.

Kegley, C.W. (ed.)

Quell, J.

Klooster, F.H.

Ligbttoot, R. H.

Manson, T.W.

Marsh, John.

H1st.o17 2! Dopa. Volumes V and VII. ReU BucbaDaD, transe New York: Dover Publications, 1961.

The Theol081 ot Karl Bart;h. London: Düëkworth aDdCo., 1964.

128

li!!. Westminster Confession !2!:. Toda.t. RiclDood,Virg1nia:John Knox Press,1960.

" Revied ot • Church Dogmatics t II,2.· Theolo81 Toda.t. 1958.

" Theolog1an of the Word of God." Theoloq T9d!r. 1956-1957. '

Theolop ~ ~ 01d Testament. London: Hodder . am Stougbton, 1958. .

The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiu. Gr'aud Rapids, iiichigan: Eërdm"'8iii;' 1968.

"UDiversali_ and Horals." the Scottish Journal ~ Theo1oR. 1950.

The Theology of Emil Brunner. New York: ne JlacJl:Ulan Co., 1962. ~ ,,/ ~ ~ ~( >:0.;1'_ ',. Theological

DictiOll817 ~ Y!!. !!! Testament. V.IV. G.K1tte1, ed. Grand Rapids, Hichigan: Eerdmaœ, 1965.

II!!. SiSDificance ~ Barth t s Theolop:. Grand Rapids, Hichigan: Baker Book H~use, 1961.

§i.Jolm's Gospel.. OXford: The Clarendon Press, 1956. . .

"Raaans." Peake's Caumentaw 2!! ~ Bibl.e. M.Black and H.H.Bovley, eds. London: ThC1118S Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1962.

Saint John. London: The Pelican Gospel Ccmmentarres, 1968. .

· Maury, Pierre.

Moule, C.F.D.

Miegge, Giovanni.

Matczak, Sebastian A.

McLelland, J.C.

Osborn, R.T.

Polman, A.D.R.

Proposed Confession of 1967.

Presb,yterian Church in Canada.

Reid, J.K.S.

Richardson, Alan.

Richamson, G.E.

129

Predest.ination. London: SOM, 1961.

The Phenamenon of the New Testmanent. IOiidon: SCM" 1971i. - - 1

" A RaIlan Catholic Interpretation of Karl Barth." the Scottish Journal of Theology. 1954. -

Karl Barth on God. New York: st. Paul Pübiication&; 1962.

Il The Reformed Doétrine of Predestination According to Peter Martyr." the Scottish Journal 2! Theology. September" 1955.

Il Grace, Bible and Church in Karl Barth." i;S6:0urnal. 2! ~ !!!S Relision.V.24.

Freedom ~Modern Theolo~. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press" l 7.

~. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. Calvin D. Freeman" transe 1960.

Bulletin.V.5." 1965, Departmsnt of Theo10gy" World Presc,terian Alliance.

An Historical Diae(t of the Work in Articles 2! Faith. 1242-ï9bi).Prë8. Church in Canada" Don tills, Ontario.

Il The Office of Ohrist in Predestination." the Scottish Journal g! Theology. ( Article in two parts). V.I, No.l" 1948. .

S. Introduction ~ .!:.b! Theology 9! ~ !!! Testament. London: SOM" 1958.

I!rael in ~ Aposto1ic Church. SNTS Monogr,Pii,,· series 10, Cambridge: The thiversitT Press" 1969.

Riddell, J .G.

Robinson, J.A.T.

Row1ey, H.H.

Sanday, W. and Headlalll, A.O.

Schaif, Philip.

Tasker, R. V.G.

Troon, Peter.

Torrance, T.F.

Wi1es, M.

l.30

"Qod '8 Etiemal Decrees." the Scottish Journal g! Theolo&y. 1949.

"Universalism ~ Is it Heret.ical ?" the Scottish Journal ~ Theology. 1949.

"Universalism - A Reply'." the Scottish Jo~ ~ Theo1o&y.1949.

The Biblical Doctrine of Election. London: Liitterworth, 196ô. -

Il!! Epistle 12 !:!!! Romans. 100. Edinburgh: T • and" • T .Clark, 1920.

The Oreeds of Ohristendaœ. Volumes l -III. iëW York: Hi'rper and Bras., 1919.

~. John. London: The Tyndale Press, 1960.

HYper-Calvinism. London: The Olive Tree, 1967.

" Universa1.1sm or Election ?" the Scottish Journal. 2! Theo1o&y. 1949.

" Revi~w of 'Church Dogmatics' II,2.'' Theo1ogy• Number 62. 1959.