Now, I think this issue deserves further consideration because both Owen and Barth make a very strong case that Christ actually saved objectively sinners with his work and this objective work is true whether sinners believe it or not. This teaching is of course contrary to the Heidelberg catechism and John Calvin, but it is not necessarily heretical. If we charge Barth with Heresy, Owen and 5-point calvinism go down with it and so does modern lutheranism that also affirms an objective justification. So we have to be extremely careful here. Because although Calvin and the Heidelberg catechism affirm a universal atonement for all men, that requires the condition of faith, Karl Barth and John Owen affirm an unconditional atonement that has saved men unconditionally. It is safer not to charge either side with heresy on this one.

But my point was to show that 5-point calvinism and Barth have a lot more in common with each other than with Calvin and the Heidelberg catechism. You can take all of Barth theology and all his universal objective work of salvation, and all you need to do is make election particular instead of universal, and lo and behold you have the theology of John Owen.

Because of this, we should not jump to conclusions that Barth, John Owen, and modern lutheranism are all wrong in affirming an objective salvation outside of faith. Owen affirms it for the elect and Barth and the lutherans for the whole world. sin

Calvin, Luther, the Heidelberg catechism, John Davenant and the hypothetical universaliststs hey all deny any type of objective salvation and instead affirm a universal atonement for all men that did not save anybody unconditionally. Basically at the atonement Christ propitiated the wrath of God for all mankind so that he is now pacified to the whole human race on condition of faith, so that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved. Unlike Owen, Ursinus (as John Davenant and the hypothetical universalists) affirmes in the Heidelberg Catechism that Christ suffered for all, he suffered for Judas as well as Peter, so that if Judas had repented he would have been saved. And this is consistent with what John Davenant writes in his book “A dissertation on the death of Christ”. But here’s the Heidelberg Catechism and Ursinus commentary affirming the conditional death of Jesus Christ for the whole human race :

http://www.seeking4truth.com/ursinus/zuquestion37.htm

Q37
Q. What do you understand by the word, “suffered”?
A. That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained, in body and soul, the anger of God against the sin of the whole human race.

Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction. Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly, by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us.

After reading this book I have to say that it is safer to affirm the doctrine of justification by faith than affirming the doctrine of a universal objective justification. For no matter how much the work of Christ hast accomplished we can not say that anybody is justified before God unless they have come to faith and embraced the Savior or in the case of infants they have been baptized. Going any further I am afraid we have no authority from God to proclaim that the whole world has been declared righteous by God, the whole mass of sinners that will never come to repentance and faith. So I have to backpedal on this one, as much as I got excited about Barth objective salvation initially, it just does not seem to jive with scripture. So I have to agree with Jim when he warned me about my error and pointed out Barth’s error of moving the whole work of salvation to what Christ accomplished and completely disregarding the application of the redemption Christ accomplished. Unfortunately as I said, I have to go by what scripture says, and justification is not something Christ accomplished for the whole human race at the cross, it is the gift of God to be received through faith together with all the other benefits of Christ’s death.

1) Both started with Calvin and ended far apart and away from Calvin
2) While Calvin accepted the tension between a universal atonement of the sins of the whole world and a particular decree of election. Beza and Barth rejected this tension and reconciled the decree of election and the death of Christ, Beza made both parrticular and Barth both universal. In doing so, both departed from Calvin radically. It was Prosper of Aquitaine, the disciple of Augustine that warned that anybody that would try to reconcile the two, would go down a slippery slope. And this is exactly what Beza and Barth did.

3) So from this perspective both Theodore Beza (scholastic calvinism) and Karl Barth need to be strongly rejected. Because both used Calvin as their starting point and both radically departed from Calvin. Barth and Beza went in opposite directions, Barth into universalism denying the biblical doctrine of particular election and Beza into particular redemption denying the universality of Christ’s saving death for all men.(both believer and unbeliever).

“That Luther believed in objective justification is, however, very easy to demonstrate. Luther says, for
example, that when we baptize someone we must say to the person being baptized, “All your sins are remitted
by reason of the presence of Christ. Therefore I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. This means that I remit all your sins, cleansing you of them right now” (LW 22, 177). In that context he
writes,
“Baptism … remains valid and correct, even if it could be proved that a child or an adult did not believe when
baptized … whether I believe or disbelieve, it remains good and valid in itself.” That he had a correct
understanding of the function of faith in this matter is clear from the words that follow: “If I believe, it benefits
me … if I do not believe, Baptism will not redound to my good in all eternity” (p. 175).
Commenting on the words of Christ in which he commanded his disciples to “preach the remission of
sins” (Lk 24:47) Luther says that this is nothing else than “to preach the Gospel, which announces to all the
world that in Christ the sins of the whole world are swallowed up, that he died to take our sins away from us
and that he rose to devour them and wipe them out, so that all who believe this have such hope and assurance”
(St. L. 11, 693). It is crystal clear that the announcement of forgiveness to all the world comes first; then faith
builds on that announcement and finds comfort and assurance in it.
If there is still any doubt that Luther believed that when God tells us in the Gospel that our sins are
forgiven this is true whether we believe it or not, all such doubt ought surely to disappear when we listen to
Luther’s ridicule of the Roman doctrine of the “erring key” (LW 40, 337ff). That term, in Roman Catholic
theology, means that when the priest says, “Absolvo te,” “I forgive your sins” those words are not true if the
person is not really contrite, if he has knowingly omitted some sins from his confession, or does not intend to
carry out the satisfaction prescribed by the priest. Lutherans whose theology is basically Romanizing will say
that the pastor’s words, “I forgive you all your sins” are true only for the believers in the audience.
Speaking of the “erring key” Luther writes,
Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time,
how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it … He who does not
accept what the keys give receives, of course, nothing. But that is not the key’s fault. Many do
not believe the gospel, but this does not mean that the gospel is not true or effective. A king
gives you a castle. If you do not accept it, then it is not the king’s fault, nor is he guilty of a lie.
But you have deceived yourself and the fault is yours. The king certainly gave it. (LW 40, 366f)
In that same context he indicates very clearly that when the pastor speaks the absolution he should be able to
say, “I know for certain that I have loosed you before God, whether you believe it or not.” We need no more
evidence than this to prove beyond question that Luther believed in what we call “objective or universal
justification” even though he did not use the term. “

Jim had made the point: “How can there be justification prior to and apart from faith? On that scheme justification is no longer by faith alone, but faith is by justification alone.”

Jim’s position / conflict is partly derived from Gen 15:6; a verse mistranslated in most English Bibles:

I will start with Nehemiah 9:7-9: Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; (8) and foundest his heart faithful (see next paragraph) before Thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite, and the Girgashite, even to give it unto his seed, and hast performed Thy words; for Thou art righteous.

These verses make 3 points: (i) God had taken control of Abraham life; (ii) Abraham was faithful (Niphal participle of aman: someone who proves themselves dependable / reliable / trustworthy); and (iii), God was righteous (Hebrew: sdq) to perform these works (i.e. God’s works were a demonstration of His righteousness).

Regarding Gen 15:6 (the same narrative) Hebrew parallelism and syntax indicates the subject of the first clause (Abram) is the subject of the second. The verb form in the first clause is Hophal, a passive with causation. The verb in the second clause is Qal imperfect (indicates unfinished action), and has a 3rd feminine singular suffix, referencing the feminine noun sdqh (righteousness). Regarding “to him,” the lamed has a dagesh (a dot which whenever used indicates God as the referent).

Reformed hermeneutics teaches that obvious verses must interpret difficult verses … Neh 9:7-9 is obvious, Gen 15:6 because of the ambiguous pronouns is difficult.

The sense of Gen 15:6 in Hebrew is: “He (Abraham) was compelled to trust in the LORD and reckon / credit / esteem / acknowledge Him (the LORD) righteous.”

This translation agrees with Neh 9:7-9.

Gen 15:6 cannot be used to teach Abram was righteous because of faith.

Also Romans 4:5 speaks about believing in God who justifies the ungodly. So Paul makes justification is the object of faith. God does not justify those that have faith or the godly, God justifies the ungodly Paul says. Clearly Paul is talking about a justification without faith in this passage, but one that needs to be believed, received by faith.

Those are the passages I referred in my post above that affirm a justification without faith of the whole world, it didn’t come clear in the post so I retype them here.

So what’s my take on it ? I think that we can not read the bible in a literalistic way. In many other passages the unconditional universal forgiveness of sin without faith is proclaimed 1 John 2:2 1 , Timothy 4:10 , 2 Corinthians 5:19 , Matthew 12:31-32

So what the bible is telling us is that forgiveness or justification has really two steps as I have indicated. 1) God forgives 2) Man accepts , rejects, or is not even aware that this forgiveness took place (those that don’t hear the gospel). So whenever the bible speaks of justification outside of faith in the passages I quoted, it refers to step 1) which is the gospel proclamation of the universal remission of sins already pronounced by God on the whole world. And when the bible speaks of faith justifying it refers to man accepting this forgiveness.

1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

How can a strictly and exclusively forensic benefit of redemption (justification) produce anything, nevermind the subjective and renovative gift of faith? If justification is a declarative word of the judge, how is it that that declaration can produce faith? Furthermore, how can there be justification quite prior to and apart from faith? On that scheme justification is no longer by faith alone, but faith is by justification alone. That seems to turn Paul upside down.

Put it another way, aince I just explained justification is the gospel, is the object of faith. Justification is the result of Christ’s work on the cross. Justification creates faith, it is objective. Faith is the human response that receives justification. And this the context in which Paul of justification by faith, in that justification is the object of faith, it is what faith believes, what faith receives.

2 Corinthians 5:19 speaks of God in Christ having reconciled the world to himself on account of Christ by not imputing their trespasses , i.e God unconditionally justified outside of faith the whole world. This is the gospel. But 2 Corinthians 5:20 calls for man to be reconciled to God, that is it demands faith, it demands a human response to the gospel. But no man can come to saving fait unless he be justified first, because faith is the human response to God”s act of justification. Justification is the gospel, faith is believing the gospel, i..e. faith is believing that we (sinners’ the ungodly) have been freely justified solely on account of Christ

Faith is still necessary to receive the forgiveness of sins or to receive justification. But the justification of the ungodly is on account of Christ’s work, God pronounces the verdict not guilty to man on account of Christ”s perfect obedience and his death on the cross. The active and passive obedience of Christ triggers the justification of the ungodly. It is this justification that triggers faith, the human response. We love, because he loves as first. We can only come to faith because he has justified us in Christ first freely and unconditionally. When Paul says we are justified by faith, all he means is that those that have faith are the only ones that have responded to God”s unconditional unilateral love and unconditional unilateral forgiveness. But the response of man, faith, is nothing else than receiving this free forgiveness that God has already pronounced as a result of Christ”s perfect obedience. So faith is required but not in order that God may forgive us, or that God may justify us, or that God be reconciled to us. Quite the opposite, faith is required because God has forgiven us, has already justified us in Christ, is already reconciled to us. Faith is our response to God’s grace but does not earn grace, so grace precedes faith, justification precedes faith.

Full reconciliation needs two steps. God forgives and justifies first, man receives this forgiveness and justification in faith. Both justification, God’s unconditional act, and faith which is man”s response are required for salvation. Faith is the response to the gospel, but the gospel is true whether faith be present or not. Justification which is God’s act of pronouncing a non guilty verdict on account of Christ”s work on the cross is the gospel. And the gospel does not depend on faith, but on Christ’s work of salvation, the non guilty verdict is solely grounded on what Christ did and not our faith which is the human response that receives and believes the not guilty verdict.

Hi Jim, you asked me for my thoughts on what you wrote. You know if you had asked me two weeks ago I would have agreed with you. But I have seen something that has really changed my mind. I will tell you where I see Barth’s doctrine of universal justification much stronger than the original Reformers. This is why confessional lutheranism has embraced it. Let me show you, because it’s of the essence of the gospel. Does the forgiveness of sin require one or two parties ? For example for you to forgive somebody is it necessary that the other person accept your forgiveness? What if they don’t even know you’ve forgiven them because it took you so long that you can’t find the person to tell them the good news ? The answer to both questions is that you as a human being forgive unilaterally. Forgiveness can’t be conditional by definition on the offender accepting it. They may reject it. Or if you are unable to tell them for whatever reason they may not even know you have forgiven them. The same thing is with God, he forgives on account of Jesus Christ. And this forgiveness does not depend on a human response. it can not, otherwise it would be a conditional forgiveness. So if in Christ the whole human race is forgiven unconditionally. Now from God’s point of view everybody is forgiven. In Christ God does not hate man any longer, all sins have been atoned for. However man still hates God until he accepts the free unconditional forgiveness of sin. Although God is already reconciled to man in Christ, man is not reconciled to God until he accepts this unconditional forgiveness.

In summary in the act of forgiving (between God and man, or between two men as well) there are two parties, the offender and the offended. One forgives, the other one receives the forgiveness. However the act of forgiving by the offended party does not depend on the offender receiving or accepting the forgiveness. Many times we forgive but our forgiveness is rejected by the other party, but this does no mean that we have not forgiven. But because the offender rejects our forgiveness full reconciliation has not taken place, however from our side we have fully forgiven. The same thing with God, he forgives, and his forgiveness can never depend on a human being accepting it or rejecting it. Otherwise by definition it is not forgiveness.

Do you understand what I mean ? So it makes for Barth to teach that justification does not depend on a human response (faith) because justification is the free act of God who on account of Christ’s work on the cross forgives sinners. And this act of justification can never depend on faith. Faith is the human response to justification, but faith can never justify nor lack of faith can ever invalidate the justification of the ungodly. Because forgiveness is a unilateral act of God, forgiveness always requires one party only, i.e. God. It does not depend on the offender (man) accepting it or rejecting it.

Because this theology affirms that although the whole human race is united to Christ and ascended into heaven and sitting at the right hand of god, in order to partake of the benefits we still need to have faith, it will be impossible to refute biblically. In essence trinitarian theology is biblical christianity. It does not affirm that faith saves, but it does affirm that without nobody can be saved. In essence it is not different from calvinism, in that trinitarian theology still affirms that fellowship with God can only be experienced through faith and this faith is purely of grace, a gift of God. This faith does not save though, but the faith of Christ in the Father is what saves all men both believer and unbeliever. However the unbeliever because he does not faith has no fellowship with God and perishes. In this theology although everybody is elect, one can argue that the reprobate are the elect that do not know they are elect (do not have faith that they are elect).

This theology is no different from the Reformers. Call it post modern calvinism or post modern luthearnism. The lutheran church has embraced it in the form of objective justification. Many calvinists now consider Barth a post modern calvinist, I personally do. But not all calvinists have embraced trinitarian theology, the same can not be said of confessional luthernaism which has wholeheartedly embraced a universal objective justification of the hole human race whether they have faith or not. Objective justification for the lutheran church is a fait acompli that does not require faith and encompasses the whole of humanity. This objective justification needs to be received by faith (subjective justification), but faith receives a justification that is already accomplished, faith does not justify but is the instrument by which objective justification is received.

Although I had recently had some serious reservations about this theology, I do not believe it can be biblically refuted. As a matter of fact I read recently Michael Jinkins “Invitation to Theology” and believe trinitarian theology to have many advantages that can not be found in traidtional theology. Specially the doctrine of revelation, where natural revelation can only be understood through special revelation. This is consistent with Romans 1 that affirms that through nature we can only deny God, but when we look at nature through Christ (the whole cosmos as fallen in Adam and redeemed in Jesus Christ) then and only then can we escape the sin of idolatry and worshipping nature, which is pantheism. Far from leading to pantheism as Jim Cassidy affirms, it avoids pantheism (the worshipping of the creature instead of the creator). I now see Chris in everything, even when I walk past a baseball stadium I see it as redeemed in Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:17 affirms all things are redeemed in Jesus Christ. The whole cosmos has been saved and is resurrected in Christ.

Hi Bill,

I don’t disagree with you at all. I make the role of faith in reconciliation more explicit in my dissertation. Faith does have a role. All men, for Barth, everywhere are called upon to believe the Gospel. Nevertheless, the efficacy of the Gospel does not depend on the faith of men. So, while there is a moral injunction for all men to believe, all men are already justification, sanctified, and converted in Christ.

You are quite correct that this does take the focus off of us and upon Christ. And you are right to ask the question about whether or not its biblical. In Scripture, faith is a non-negotiated condition of the covenant of grace in general and justification in particular. We may think that that undoes grace, and places the focus back on us. And that is a real danger. But it is what God has said, and in his wisdom it is a proper way to speak. Now, the Reformed dealt with the anthropocentric problem when they articulated the doctrine of saving faith as something that is given to us from Christ himself (a la Eph 2:8). In this way, the glory – even for our faith – is given to God in Christ. So that it is always from him, to him, and through him that he might alone get the glory in our salvation. Barth rejected the human element of the covenant outside of Christ, and as such landed himself on the side of the anabaptist, radical reformers.

What do you think?

Let me elaborate. Let ‘ s take justification as an example. Although the work of justification was objective and fully accomplished by Christ through, his perfect obedience and death on the cross, there was a corresponding subjective element which is the human response of faith. Faith was certainly not a condition of justification, and justification does not depend on faith, nonetheless it can be argued that for Barth the subjective aspect of justification is faith. But you are right justification does not depend on faith and has been fully completed in Christ outside of faith. From this perspective you can say that the work of salvation is fully objective, but as I mentioned for Barth the human response (faith) was very important. Even though it is not faith that justifies but Christ, Barth did give a lot of importance to faith as the human response to justification. So saying that the soteriology of Barth has no subjective element is a bit of a stretch.

I personally like the approach of Barth because it takes the focus away from me and puts it on Christ. It solves many of the criticisms that have been levied against the puritans which sought assurance of salvation in themselves (in their faith or in their works / sanctification). For Barth instead, the assurance of salvation comes from the promises of the gospel that are found in Christ, so it is an objective assurance that does not depend on me.

The bigger question is whether the approach of Barth is biblical or not. And I think there are bible passages like 1 Timothy 4:10 that support Barth in that salvation is unconditional (justification) whether one believes or not. That said even though God has saved man unconditionally, man still needs to accept this salvation already accomplished, not in order to be saved (he is already saved by the work of Christ on the cross) but to receive what is already his. This is what Barth is trying to get at. And I think it is a very biblical understanding of salvation.