By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 02:45:59 +0000

And this modification to Barth’s theology should not be difficult to do. Since Barth speaks of Christ as the elect, this cornerstone is compatible with traditional calvinism and biblical. The only thing that would be different is that Christ would be the head of man (but not all humans as Barth understood, but only Christ’s sheep, his elect, the church). I’m wondering if nobody ever thought about this, because in my opinion it would render Barth’s theology much more acceptable and compatible with traditional reformed theology.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 02:36:04 +0000

Thanks James. Another excellent summary of Barth, I am wondering whether there is a way to preserve Barth’s excellent christology and his layout of the atonement wokr of Christ and ditching his biggest error, universal election. That Christ is the elect man, Calvin would have no problem with, he was certainly the elect from God. The problem arises in that Barth makes election universal for all men, that Jesus is the representative of all mankind. What if we keep Barth’s theology as is except for one change ? We just say that in Jesus God said yes to all believers and those that will believe in the future (the number of the elect as traditional reformed theology understands it). I believe that Barth theology then would incredibly solid, election would be in Christ, but only believers will find this election and are called the elect. So we leave Barth’s doctrine as is, except that all Christ does in his atoning work he does it not for all men but for some men (his Church).

Comments on: Crossing Lessing’s Ugly Ditch: Karl Barth on Union with Christ

By: Bill

By: Bill