Oh bobby, and the other place you can have a biblical exposition of unlimited atonement is in Zacharias Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Ursinus teaches that Christ made satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race (unlimited atonement), but the application of the atonement when God creates faith is on the elect alone (limited atonement). This is as good as it gets as far as universal grace, you really do not need Barth or Torrance at all. The Heidelberg catechism will do it.

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.

Hi Bobby, I did go through your website and do like what you write. With that said you can’t be seduced by Barth and Torrance. No historical Adam and Christ having a fallen nature, should be sufficient warning that there is something very wrong with neo orthodoxy. I can see you are drawn to them because of their strong view of universal grace which you do not find in some of the Reformed. But you are much better off learning a theology of universal grace from Prosper of Aquitaine’s book “The Call to all nations” than from Barth and Torrance. Lutheran theology would be another option. Reformed theology in the tradition of John Davenant also addresses universal grace in a fully biblical manner.

Though I applaud Barth and Torranceon their understanding of the universal covenant of redemption, that they mistakenly call it election, when in fact election can only be found through faith in Christ and the objective work of Christ alone saves nobody unless it is apprehended by faith. And this sharp separation that Barth and Torrance make about an objective accomplished work of Christ and faith has no biblical foundation whatsoever. Barth fails to understand that the work of Christ is worthless, useless, and profits nobody unless it is accompanied by repentance and faith. And even though there is a universal and objective value in the atonement, it profits nothing to mankind unless it is followed by repentance and faith. And this latter part is where Barth and Torrance fail miserably, they do not recognize that those elected in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world are those that are united to Christ though faith. Even though Ephesians 1:4-5 is plain about this. The other thing is that both Barth and Torrance fail to see that without faith there is no grace, faith and grace are joined to one another as fire is to heat and light. The apostle Paul clearly teaches this, not faith means no grace, Romans 4:16 16 “That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace” So both Barth and Torrance commit a major heresy when they speak about grace in an objective way, without any reference to faith. It is impossible to understand God’s grace apart from faith, and there is no grace (or election) apart from faith. So to truncate God’s grace by confining it to an objective work that Christ accomplished on the cross 2000 years ago is utter heresy. Because God’s grace is not just the objective work of Christ on the cross as Barth and Torrance teach, but God’s grace includes calling sinners to repentance and faith, as Paul teaches by grace you have been saved through faith. So God’s grace includes both an objective component (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and a subjective component (when God creates repentance and faith in his elect only). Now Barth’s teaching on the objective work of Christ is to be praised, but his neglect of faith and his failure to see that only those that have faith in Christ, only those that are regenerated by the Spirit are God’s elect is inexcusable and utterly heretic. And this theological mistake is due to Barth disassociating the work of Christ on the cross from the believer’s faith, and as a consequence Barth misunderstood grace and election which can not exist where there is no faith, and in a way he denied the doctrine of sola fide of the Reformers.

It is obvious that had Christ had a fallen nature he would have have basically not been Christ, and he would have been in Adam. The fallen nature or sinful nature that man has Christ did not. Event though Barth and Torrance teach that Christ did not sin, the both affirm that he had a fallen nature. This is a complete misunderstanding of what a fallen nature is, a fallen nature means that we are dead in trespasses and sins. And it is impossible for Christ to have had such a nature. The more I learn about Barth, the more I agree that neo orthodoxy= no orthodoxy. No historical Adam, Christ being born in a fallen state, it just gets too much heresy. Because this goes beyond, the heresies of these two doctrines, show a complete lack of understanding of man’s sinful condition. And if you do not understand sin, your understanding of a savior is probably flawed as well.

http://evangelicalcalvinist.blogspot.com/2012/07/was-karl-barth-neo-orthodox-theologian.html

And this limitation of natural science being unable to go one bit past a rudimentary form of deism, if that. I would say it does not go past proving there is a creator as Roman 1 says. And this is what prompted Christ to tell the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 that salvation is of the Jews, and also that the Samaritans did not know God or what they worshipped. Jesus made very clear how limited natural revelation is. And it should be a caution for those that give more weight to science than it actually has. Luther called those people theologians of glory in contrast to the theologian of the cross that looks at Christ and not science or natural revelation.

Now, for those that want to trust science and say the age of a rock is for a scientist and not the bible to tell me for example they can be comforted that like Romas 1 teaches creation is self evident, God revealed himself in it. So natural revelation is not totally powerless, it can certainly prove the existence of deity. The founding fathers in the U.S were desists , and many scientists today as well, many Americans believe in a higher power, and many Buddhists believe there is a higher energy that drives the universe, Aristotle believed in a prime mover etc. Even Stephen Dawkins, famous atheist, recently admitted that he is open to intelligent design by aliens. So intelligent design of the universe can be seen through general revelation in nature and science, but can not go any further. By the same token, we have to be humble and admit that the bible though historically factual can not give us the age of the earth with certainty, even though I think that through faith we will arrive to a young earth doctrine, it is possible that other Christians arrive to an older earth doctrine. But certainly evolution is a denial,of the faith as well as prehistoric men or cavemen that could not communicate and could not understand the gospel. The bible is clear that man was never in that condition in creation or after the fall. He was capable of hunting and farming intelligently and the caveman or Neanderthal is not biblical man.

And not just the flood messed up the fossil record. The fall messed up all the aging processes that scientists use as well. Not just because God created a mature universe, but also because as I mentioned in my lengthy post above things operated differently prior to the fall (there was no death, men and animals were vegetarian, for the first three days of creation there was light with no sun etc.(

This is Barth’s letter to his niece I referred to above where he concludes that natural revelation and special revelation will never agree. And as I said Barth is right in asserting this as I explained in my post above, but wrong in saying that the creation account of Genesis is saga or poem. http://www.faith-theology.com/2006/01/creation-and-evolution-letter-from.html

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I noticed this morning the extra insertion and have now read it. You raised many good points for discussion, however, we must leave that discussion for another day since Barth is the purpose of this page.

As we all agree, Barth did not fully support the Lutheran or Reformed traditions, and that his prolific writings fall somewhere in the nebulous “neo” category, a category which tends not to support ideas such as special revelation or supernaturalism.

I am not too familiar with Lutheranism, however, I have taken numerous Reformed courses, each of which in one way or another taught special revelation as being inspired, inerrant and infallible. I raised the geocentric error of the Reformers because I believe it indicates the assumptions about special revelation are not always true. Understandably, not everyone is going to agree with my conclusion.

Bill … and James … thanks for the discussion and as indicated above, I will start reading more of Barth.

But in one sentence what I explained is that natural revelations through science is at best imperfect and incomplete, and in the worst case scenario utter idolatry like the theory of evolution. But even the best christian science by using the scientific method will never be able to arrive at the right answer because the scientific method does not allowed for supernatural events. Elementary Mr. Watson, and I proved it beyond reasonable doubt with multiple examples of God’s creation by supernatural means. Science can never account for this, so the scientific method will always arrive at a different answer than scripture, as I gave examples in my post with regard to age of Adam the day he was created, the wine that Christ produced from water, the age of the earth etc. Science is true inasmuch as it does not contradict scripture, but the whenever a supernatural event in scripture takes place science is thrown out of the window and is useless. Whether the sun or the earth is the center of the universe doesn’t matter one iota, and Luther and Calvin would give two hoots either way. Because this is not a supernatural event and scripture is mainly silent on it, creation on the other hand is a supernatural event that science can not account for. Man created from dust ? Science can never figure this one out. Wine created from water ? No way says the scientist. But Jesus can speak supernaturally things into creation. Anyhow enough said. Read my post above in reply to your post dated April 26, 20215. This is just a summary.

At the time of Luther and Calvin there was no proof of Copernicus theory, but I have yet to hear a single lutheran or reformed theologian that thinks that Copernicus discovery affected their theology. Not one bit. The Augsburg confession and the Heidelberg catechism did not have to change one bit. And as I said Luther and Calvin would have admitted they were wrong and that would be the end of it, no change in theology required.

Bruce, I just replied to your prior post a few seconds ago and wrote at length how supernatural events make a mockery of science and trump science. I explained in detail how Jesus created wine at the feast of Cana and science will never figure it out. How God created the earth about 30,000 years ago and fooled all scientists that think the earth is 4 billion years old. Lutheran theology explains this much better than the reformed in my opinion, because I have yet to see a confessional lutheran that does not believe the earth was created in 6 literal days. And they are damn right in giving a damn about scientific evidence otherwise, scientific evidence is historically inaccurate for the reasons I have explained in the long post I just wrote a few minutes ago above. I appears above my last post above, because I replied to an earlier post of you. So you have to go back a bit further up and you will get a taste of lutheran apologetics.

Here’s the other thing Bruce. Hypothetically, could God have used a natural process to create man ? Like some sort of natural evolution for example. It’s possible, I don’t know. But scripture said he didn’t, he created man out of dust. So no matter what scientific theory for a possible creation of man ever comes up, it’s not the method God used period, regardless whether from a natural science point of view is possible or not. For example we all know that naturally wine can be created from grapes. But it takes time, and a well aged wine of good quality may take 5 years or longer. But Jesus at the wedding of Cana created wine out of water, and instantly the wine was better quality that a well aged wine made from grapes. He could have also spoken the wine into existence if he had wanted to. The wine that Jesus made was less than a day old when the guests were drinking it, yet if a scientist where to inspect that wine I bet he will say it was at least 5 years old made of the best quality grapes. A scientist would be wrong, the wine was made from water and it was made instantly the same day. So here’s the thing science can never contradict scripture and can never be a threat to scripture, because science deals with natural phenomena and scripture with the supernatural. Two different realms. Another example scientists at the University of Berkeley say diamonds are at the very least 990,000 years old http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/eps2/wisc/Lect6.html Are the scientists correct ? Certainly based on the natural science methods they use. Does this mean the earth is at least 990,000 years old ? From a natural science point of view yes. Are the scientists correct or is science wrong ? The answer is science is most likely wrong, because science is assuming God created diamonds through a natural way. But God said let their be diamonds, and instantly there were diamonds that to the scientific eye look like they are a million years old when in fact God just made them. Even man, can make synthetic diamonds in less than 24 hours, and some say they are even better quality than the natural diamonds. I’m not going to debate whether they or aren’t other than say that God can make diamonds in one second that look like they have been made 900000 years ago. Another example if a Doctor at the end of the sixth day of creation were to examine Adam and determine what age Adam was, I bet the Doctor will say 20 years old or 30 years old or whatever. But the real age of Adam on the sixth day of creation was less than one day although his biological or natural age or scientific age whatever you want to call it was much older. Because Adam looked and acted like an adult male on the sixth day of creation. Nowhere does scripture tells us that God created a male baby and nurse him and raised him like a mom would until he was an adult. So as you can see the scientific or biological age is always going to be different from the theological age or the age the event actually happened in history. For example the earth has most likely a historic age of less than 30,000 years, just guessing here and it doesn’t really matter (some of the guys before Noah lived 1000 years each, so maybe the earth could be a bit older specially if some generations are missing in scripture or it could be younger ) , but the earth has a scientific or geological age of 4 billion years. I heard some lutherans theologians like Tom Baker from KFUO radio law and gospel that God created the earth with age. Anyhow you get the point when supernatural events are involved (like Christ creating wine from water) all science is thrown out of the window and the supernatural trumps the natural, this is why if there ever is a conflict between scripture and science, scripture prevails. This is no knock on science or to recommend that scientists base their science on the bible, quite the opposite, this is just a warning that science and scripture will get to different answers to the same question. And this must be so because scripture contains supernatural events that have historically occurred that science fails to account for.

I quoted Martin Luther above because you had already indicated your Lutheran leanings. Since Martin Luther used sacred Scripture to defend his geocentric preaching, you cannot now say that Scripture is silent. Geocentricity was a critical element of Luther’s understanding of God, creation, and the accuracy of revelation. Notice especially the last sentence by Phillip Melanchton (who shared Luther’s geocentric belief) “to accept the truth as revealed by God.”

Now read again what you just wrote, verses you quoted, and sentences such as, “I wish people would accept it by faith.” Luther, Calvin, Melanchton and other Reformers used the same words, with the same sincerity, with the same faith in Scripture, God’s revelation … yet they were wrong. Natural revelation of scientists preempted special revelation as interpreted by theologians. I believe this should give us cause for reflection.

Now with regard to the DNA sounds like you are implying it proves the theory of evolution. You basically are saying that humans and chimpanzes share a common ancestor, because both can not produce vitamin C. Not to be sarcastic or disrespectful, but I am really having a good chuckle at it. Obviously God is the creator of the DNA and used it to create different forms of life, plants , animals, and man. But this does not prove at all that plants have evolved into animals or animals have a common ancestor. All it proves is that God used a common building block in the creation of plants, animals, and man, the DNA. It doesn’t even prove there is a common ancestor between plants and animals. The main problem is that we have not found a single common ancestor that the evolutionary biologists talk about, no not even one, they are all missing links in the chain of evolutionary imagination. Why would anybody put any trust in this bunk is beyond me. One thing the lutheran church has been blessed with is that this debate never comes up, in lutheranism is clear, God says it that settles it. Hebrews 11:3 closes the case about God’s creation. I wish people would accept it by faith. For whatever reason the Reformed seem to struggle with this issue more than the lutherans. I know it’s very few of them, but there seems to be more acceptance of evolution or at curiosity about it. My message to those that have a weak faith and can’t accept the work of creation by faith as Hebrews 11:3 confesses every Christian has to, well use your brain guys. Romans 1 says it’s self evident. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to refute evolution Romans 1 18-20 . The DNA far from being a challenge to Christianity is further proof of God’s act of creation. People make excuses for idolatry, in the past they blamed the sun or the moon or the rain and worshipped them , then we got Spinoza and panteheism in the 17th century and they worshipped nature, and now we have evolution and the DNA. These are all one and the same type of idolatry outlined in Romans 1:25 where man chooses to worship the creation rather than the creator. And as the scientific knowledge increases so does the subtlety of the idolatry, evolution being the ultimate form idolatry by assigning to nature the capability of creating new beings or new species over time. So we raplace God the creator of man and plants and animals with some form of life which nobody knows what it was that had some form of original DNA from which all plants, animals, and man evolved. This in and of itself is testimony to the evil heart of mankind and the utter idolatry of the mind of man that claiming to be wise has become a fool as Romans 1:22 teaches.

For instance, DNA sequencing indicates that modern humans have DNA from other hominids now extinct (Neanderthals, Denisovans, Flores, etc … people in Tuscany Italy have up to 4.5% of their DNA from Neanderthals; Polynesians have up to 6% from Denisovans). Going further back in time raises additional problems for the belief in an original Adam and Eve pair. For instance, humans and chimpanzees must both consume vitamin C to stay alive, while gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos do not. DNA sequencing indicates this latter group has a gene that produces vitamin C. Humans and chimpanzees have the same gene, except it is broken. The conclusion from this (and many examples like it) is humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

As I indicated above, Dr. Lane Tipton in various podcasts has raised deep concern about the DNA threat to the Reformed tradition. On 2 occasions I had opportunity to raise the topic with Reformed teaching staff and they too confirmed the same grave concern. Unlike Evolutionary Theory, which is open to debate about presuppositions and interpretations, DNA is hard evidence, evidence which continues to come at an amazing pace. Later this year, results are expected from the Rising Star Cave discovery, possibly the greatest find yet of ancient DNA.

Dr Barth (now deceased), and numerous theologians since, have embraced these discoveries and are coming to new understandings of Scripture. Naturally they disagree with the Reformed tradition, which was set in a previous era, an era when Luther, Calvin, etal used special revelation to preach a geocentric universe (immobile earth, around which a firmament revolves with sun, moon and stars attached, and above which, waters are reserved for judgment). Unfortunately, the natural revelation of Copernicus leading to Hubble put them on the wrong side of truth:

John Calvin: “Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.'” (Sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians);

Martin Luther: “People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or ‘man’] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” (Table Talk);

Philipp Melanchton: “The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the [stars] nor the sun revolves…Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it.”

I was shocked to find out that Barth denies the historic existence of Adam. He calls it saga (it’s not history but it’s not myth either). Well initially i wanted to give Barth the benefit of the doubt, until I read what he wrote on his Romans Commentary “This fallen state is the consequence of no single historical act: it is the unavoidable pre-supposition of all human history”. By denying the historical Adam and further by denying that the whole human race fell as a result of an act of disobedience, Barth is denying Paul when in Romans 5 he teaches that through one man’s disobedience sin entered the world . Barth although he admits the fallen state of the human race, he denies it occurred as a result of an act of disobedience, Adam is not a person that existed in history according to Barth, but a prototype of human failure, in a sense Adam was always a sinner. This is shocking for so many reasons. But for starters Adam is not only the first man created by God good, not in a fallen state. All of God’s creation was good. Adam knew only good and knew no evil when God created him. Scripture is so plain that only when Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and disobeyed God, sin entered the world. Prior to it Adam knew no evil and could not do any evil as a result, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam ate gave Adam knowledge of evil. And once man knew good and evil, he could choose nothing but evil in his fallen state . Genesis 6:5 “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

So yes, I was wrong. And i retract my support of Barth. This does not mean that Barth has not trusted in Christ alone for salvation and is not a Christian. This only God knows and is not for me to answer one way or another. Just like many arminians or roman catholics that trust in Christ alone for salvation show evidence that they are born again, and this in spite of doctrinal errors.

Source: http://calvinistinternational.com/2013/07/26/karl-barth-and-the-reformed-identity/

Hi Bill,

Actually, Barth, by his own admission, was not “orthodox” – if by that you mean he believes in and advances the Reformed theology of the 16-17th centuries. He does not, and does not consciously and purposely. He believes, in fact, that 17th century orthodoxy lead to 18th century neo-Protestantism. His actualistic ontology was a self-conscious refusal to go back to a pre-modern metaphysical approach to theology, which he saw as being of a cloth with the medieval analogia entis. Now, it may be that Barth’s original theology is acceptable within the bounds of “orthodoxy,” broadly conceived. In other words, I believe you can conclude that he is not a heretic. I don’t agree with that, but I can see someone concluding that. But on no cursory reading of Barth can one conclude that he stands in the Reformed tradition and on the Reformed confessions. Even he would respond “Nein!” to that claim!

Maybe, maybe. And I am just thinking out loud here. The only thing that may put Barth out of the reformed / lutheran tradition is that he does not preach the law first. Nobody can be converted unless they know they are without hope and in need of a savior, no just that they are poor miserable sinners but that they can not by their own best efforts stop sinning, only then are they ready to be given the good news that Christ has satisfied fully the demands of the law. But they need to come to a point where they see themselves as lost, and I am not sure Barth preaching would do it. Barth will talk about mankind being lost in general when he talks about the election of Christ, but not sure this is sufficient to convict an individual sinner of his sin. Just rambling here, I still consider Barth orthodox, I thought maybe I found something. But do not have convincing evidence yet. It’s just that Barth so overemphasizes the universal work of Christ and the universal redemption of man, that an unbeliever hearing this may think he’s redeemed instead of being convicted of his sin, his inability to stop sinning, and his need for a savior that finally allows him to receive Christ imputed righteousness and the payment for sin that Christ did on the cross.

Thank you for your encouragement to read outside the ‘Reformed’ box so to speak.

I must confess I do so with a certain reserve. While the circles you travel in welcome divergent views, such is not the case in the local church. In times past in Reformed classes I ‘gently’ raised alternate points of view and was later taken aside with the criticism I was leading the faithful astray.

The faithful in the pew do not want competing options; they want black and white certainty. Their faith is already on the edge, what with secular media and science challenging beliefs on several fronts, starting with an historical Adam and Eve pair. The Reformed tradition of Redemptive History (compared to other theologies) is especially threatened by a non-historical Adam. Unfortunately, the DNA Genome Project is publishing compelling evidence that we humans genetically emerged from various groups of homo now extinct. Dr. Lane Tipton in some of his lectures has openly admitted to this threat, saying that if Adam falls, so does Christ.

I therefore question the merit of reading extra-curricular writings. If I don’t have an outlet to share such knowledge, I end up feeling frustrated by the ‘one-sided’ position coming from the pulpit (I am speaking from experience here). Frustration is not good.

Dear Bruce,

No need to draw attention to Barth, everyone is already reading him. The hope is to provide a helpful theological framework by which his thought may be read and measured. I’m glad you are reading him, the more you do the more you will discern the discrepancy between him and the Reformed tradition.

I for one never devoted too much time to Barth, but after this podcast decided to start an investigation. I see here in Wikipedia (the go-to-source for encapsulated modern knowledge) that he was a Swiss Reformed theologian, possibly the greatest, who wrote prolifically against the then current European theology and Nazism … in other words, his writings were a protest against the culture of his day … sounds like the story of John Calvin. Like Calvin, Barth emphasized the sovereignty of God, the sinfulness of humanity, and the systematic theology between the two, albeit with different conclusions.

Without bickering over shades of theological grey, Barth seems to be closer to us than many other modern theologians and therefore worthy of further reading. Thanks for drawing attention.

Bob, for a non-theologian you get it better than most theologians today. Gerstner used to say you had to take the “e” out to get it right: “no-orthodoxy.”

As a non-theologian, I lump him together with other “modern” theologians who play word-games with terminology familiar to churchgoers. When you scratch them you find that many aren’t even theists. And yet they’ve been allowed to take over both ekesia and academy.