How to get it? Search for: Mertiso’s tips go viral

I backed up in my post from a few minutes ago this. I thank the Ursinus, the hypothetical universalists, and Spurgeon as I explained in my last post. These were the influences I credit, without which I would not have been able to arrive to this new insight on the atonement. Owen was mistaken that the elect had all their sins atoned for at Calvary, this is incorrect, unbelief was not pardoned nor dealt with at Calvary. Unbelief is such a damnable condition, that when persisted until death can not be pardoned, it demands God to remove the condition of unbelief in regeneration for a man to be saved. Of course temporary unbelief as Spurgeon mentioned was atoned for by Christ, but it is the removal of unbelief in regeneration that saves, as the English hypothetical universalists taught. And the atonement is not linked to the application of the atonement which is the brilliance of Davenant that saw it, the atonement is universal for all men (but it does not cover unbelief) and the application of the atonement is particular to the elect and removes unbelief. Ursinus clearly mentioned in his commentary on the Heidelberg that I quoted in one of my earlier post, that Christ satisfied fully for all men (Judas included) but he did not satisfy for the application (the condition of faith). As Urisinus points out God’s promise in John 3:16 has a condition, faith. And the sin of unbelief or “lack of faith” God chose not to deal with at the cross of Calvary but in regeneration. So the atonement is limited but not by the number of people it covers, it covers all men, but it’s limited in that the sin of unbelief was not atoned for. This is why the gospel demands faith and not works for salvation, as Romans 3 explains the difference between the law of faith and the law of works Romans 3:27. He that believes shall be saved, he that does not believe shall be damned is the gospel. If Christ had satisfied for the sin of unbelief, then those that do not believe the gospel would be saved and they are not.

So Karl Barth was in full error by stating that all sins of all men were atoned for including unbelief persisted till death. This is why Barth so damnation as an impossible possibility. But damnation would have been a real possibility for Barth, had he noticed that the sin of unbelief was never atoned for. It was the english hypothetical universalists and Ursinus that got the atonement right. Owen also erred seriously by stating that all the sins of the elect were atoned for at Calvary, which fails to recognize that the elect do not commit the sin of unbelief persisted until death, and that this sin was not pardoned in the elect but in fact removed by God at regeneration. None of the elect lack faith, and this is because the sin of unbelief “lack of faith” was never atoned for, and God dealt with it at regeneration and not at the cross of Calvary. So unbelief is dealt with not at Calvary, but in the application of the atonement as the hypothetical universalists correctly noted. If unbelief had been dealt with at Calvary, the gospel call would be an unconditional announcement with no demand for repentance and faith. This is why we are justified by faith, and not at the time of Christ’s atonement, none of the elect were justified at the atonement because the sin of unbelief was not removed at the cross. The elect are justified when they come to faith in regeneration and God gives them faith and removes their unbelief which was not atoned for at Calvary.

Well, very simple, what Ursinus is saying is that Chris never satisfied for the sin of unbelief persisted unto death. This is why the preaching of the gospel has a condition that you must believe to be saved. This is because Christ did not atoned for unbelief. As the english hypothetical unviersalists brilliantly pointed out the error o 5 point calvinism is that they are trying to look for salvation in the atonement, when in fact salvation is in the application of the atonement. Romans 3:27 is the key verse where Paul talks about the Law of works that saves nobody (otherwise we would boast) and the Law of Faith by which nobody can boast. You see Christ fully satisfied for the Law of Works, he loved the Father perfectly, he loved neighbor perfectly, his sacrifice was perfect so the all the sacrifices of the Old Testament have been rendered obsolete since Christ is the new high priest. But as I explained Romans 3:27 talks about the Law of Works and also the Law of Faith (by which no man can boast), and we Christ never satisfied for the Law of Faith, Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief. This is why the gospel call demands faith, because “lack of faith” or unbelief is a sin that was never atoned for at Calvary. So how does God deal with the sin of unbelief ? Very simple, as the english calvinist hypothetical universalists and Ursinus noted the sin of unbelief is dealt with regeneration (the application of the atonement) because Christ never dealt with it at Calvary. Christ died for the sins of all men, but Christ never died for all the sins of all men which is the mistake that John Owen made by assuming that all the sins of the elect were atoned for at Calvary. The fact is the sin of unbelief, even in the elect, it was never atoned at Calvary. Unbelief is not just a sin but a damnable condition, which God can never forgive, so Calvary was not the place to deal with it. God removes unbelief at regeneration, and a man is born again. This is why even the elect need to be born again, because unbelief is a sin that when persisted until death was never atoned for at Calvary. Charles Spurgeon made this very clear in his sermon on unbelief, which he considered a damnable sin which Christ never paid for. Here is Spurgeon :

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0003.htm

Spurgeon:
“5. And now to close this point—for I have been already too long—let me remark that you will observe the heinous nature of unbelief in this—that it is the damning sin. There is one sin for which Christ never died; it is the sin against the Holy Ghost. There is one other sin for which Christ never made atonement. Mention every crime in the calendar of evil, and I will show you persons who have found forgiveness for it. But ask me whether the man who died in unbelief can be saved, and I reply there is no atonement for that man. There is an atonement made for the unbelief of a Christian, because it is temporary; but the final unbelief—the unbelief with which men die—never was atoned for. You may turn over this whole Book, and you will find that there is no atonement for the man who died in unbelief; there is no mercy for him. Had he been guilty of every other sin, if he had but believed, he would have been pardoned; but this is the damning exception—he had no faith. Devils seize him! O fiends of the pit, drag him downward to his doom! He is faithless and unbelieving, and such are the tenants for whom hell was built. It is their portion, their prison, they are the chief prisoners, the fetters are marked with their names, and for ever shall they know that, “he that believeth not shall be damned.” “

So unfortunately I can not recommend the boot the death of death in the death of Christ because it pretty much misinterprets every single bible verse that talks about a the universal redemption of all men ever born in the world by Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Owen fails to see time and time again that those verses refer to the sufficiency of the atonement, and misinterprets them by saying the world refers to the elect or the verses refer to common grace but not to saving grace. The fact is that there is a universally all sufficient saving grace affirmed in the bible and affirmed in the Canons of Dort. And it can not be watered down, because it is actually the object of our faith, it is the all sufficient objective work of Jesus Christ. Even though the work of Christ, God intends to apply to the elect alone. But Barth is correct that at the time of Christ’s death all men were justified and sanctified in Christ, Hebrews 10:29 speaks about those that were sanctified (uses the exact word) that despised the blood of Christ that sanctified them. Peter also talks about those that denied the Master who bought them with their blood. We really need to interpret these verses properly, and realize they are talking about the sufficiency of Christ’s blood to take away the sins of the reprobate. But when we speak of sufficiency we can confidently say that the sins of the reprobate were taken away and atoned for at Calvary, even though the atonement does not benefit the reprobate at all because it is not received by faith, and the atonement demands faith to become effective and take away sin. So even though Christ takes away the sins of the reprobate at Calvary (all sufficiency of the atonement), without the work of the spirit in conversion nobody is saved, both the atoning work of Christ and the work of the spirit in conversion are required for salvation. The work of the spirit flows from the work of Christ, and from this point of view the work of Christ though sufficient for all intends only the redemption of the elect where the atonement is applied. In its sufficiency unlimited, in its intention the atonement is limited, because it is designed for the salvation of the believer only. But as an object of faith it is the sufficiency (and not is efficiency) that faith apprehends, and applies it by saying “Christ died for me”.

Though one thing I still want to highlight on the atonement is this. If we look at Dort when it defines the atonement as sufficient for all but efficient for the elect, and it defines sufficiency based on the value of the atonement and efficiency based on the application of the atonement through faith. But there is one thing that many have missed except for the hypothetical universalists. And it is this, that the object of faith is the sufficiency of the atonement and not the efficiency., because the application (efficiency) of the atonement depends on the all sufficiency of Christ’s work for all sinners. This is what Ursinus in his commentary on the Heidelberg catechism highlights so well. Based on this if the objective work of Christ (the sufficiency or value of the atonement) is the object of faith that the holy spirit applies to us by faith we need to believe in an unlimited atonement where Christ died as a substitute for all men and atoned for all the sins of all men. So from this point of view Barth’s view of the atonement is the most biblical one, because it defines the object of faith properly. Even though because the all sufficient universal atonement is intended for the salvation of the elect alone , and when the promises of the gospel are proclaimed they demand faith in order to save the sinner we should say that effectively Christ died for the elect only and only those sins were fully atoned at Calvary. Even though the object of faith is based on the sufficiency of the atonement and never on its effectiveness. So I think all those biblical passages that talk about unlimited atonement, talk about the sufficient satisfaction made by Christ for all sins of all people at all times. And John Owen in his book the Death of Death in the Death of Christ fails to recognize this. He is correct that the atonement viewed from its efficiency atoned for the sins of the elect alone, but incorrect in that he fails to see that in its sufficiency Christ died as a substitute for those that are in hell, because the value of the atonement is such that should God have willed to convert those men Christ’s blood would have sufficed to cover their sins. This is why Paul had no qualms with many universalist statements about the atonement and preaching a universal reconciliation of all men to Christ. All Paul is referring to in those verses is the sufficiency of the atonement and not its efficiency. And the reason the sufficiency of the atonement is so important as I said , is because it is the object of faith, while the efficiency of the atonement refers more to the gift of faith itself but not to its object.

Dear Austin,

I’m perplexed by this line of reasoning. I did not invent the idea of the “principle of charity.” It is, as stated in my book, commonly used by analytic philosophers. It has a technical, not a moral, meaning (again as I explained at length). My argument shows that the principle can be applied to a reading of Barth’s texts in order to show that they are not “inconsistent” in the way that Barth-revisionism has claimed. There is nothing honorific about the principle one way or the other.

Sincerely,
George Hunsinger

Thank you for the comment that is actually relevant to the original post. That is a fair criticism, I see now that I didn’t develop my point as well as I could have in my conclusion. My point is, that the core of Hunsinger’s critique seems to be essentially the same as his critique in other places. He states his case with a good deal of clarity in the book, and even interacts with newer contributions to the debate, but the main feature of the book is the proposed “hermeneutic of charity.” My point in saying that this move is more “rhetorical than substantive” was not to denigrate the quality of his work in the present volume, it was to clarify what I see to be a weakness in the overall move. That is, that Dr. Hunsinger’s proposition seems to be an attempt at identifying his (Dr. Hunsinger’s) interpretation of Barth as “charitable” which would seem to make him the de facto winner (so to speak) of the debate. In other words, if one were to frame the debate along the lines proposed by Dr. Hunsinger, one would have to acknowledge Dr. Hunsinger as the winner right out of the gate.

Dr. Hunsinger,

Thank you for the kind words, it was a pleasure to read and review your book. Thank you for the clarification regarding the Torrance thesis.

Kind regards,
Austin

Thanks, George. I understand and I agree with Barth that we should be hopeful for the salvation of everyone. Even Jesus when before he died, he said “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing”. And Romans 10:18 quoting psalm 19:4 teaches that the call of the Lord has gone to the ends of the world (every man). Psalm 19 is about general revelation, and Paul’s quote in Romans 10:18 suggests that there is grace even in general revelation. Romans 1:21 mentions “they knew God”. Is it possible that one or two people that never believed the gospel may be saved through general revelation ? Anything is possible, though scripture does not affirm it, some passages of Romans 2 could be interpreted that way, but nowhere is it affirmed that the grace of god in general revelation can secure the salvation of some men. Nonetheless it can not be ruled out with 100% certainty as Prosper of Aquitaine mentions in his book the Call to all nations. God’s grace can do anything. So Barth’s charity towards mankind is scriptural.

With that said I believe the teaching of a universal objective reconciliation of mankind as Barth teaches is not the best way of articulating what scripture teaches. And here again Barth is not the only culprit. I actually thought until very recently and even defended in this forum an objective universal reconciliation just like Barth teaches it. It is called the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification that the major lutheran confessional churches LCMS and WELS have formally adopted. They claim it is compatible with the 16th century book of Concord and they have already excommunicated pastors that oppose this doctrine. The doctrine basically teaches that in the death and resurrection of Jesus every single person in the world that ever lived has been pronounced righteous and is forgiven. People that go to hell are forgiven sinners, just like the people that go to heaven, the only difference is that one rejected the gift and the other accepted it. It’s very similar to Barth and Torrance. Although I used to be a big proponent of this doctrine myself, even defended it in this forum, I now find it to be not representative of what scripture teaches and in contradiction with what Luther taught and the lutheran confessions teach. I do not have a problem with the radical doctrine of grace that modern lutherans and Karl Barth teach, that Christ accomplished and no just made salvation possible, when Christ said it is finished he truly saved men and not just made salvation possible for man. Nonetheless when we talk about such radical saving grace I disagree with the modern lutherans and Barth, and side with the Heidelberg Catechism and the WCF that teach that this type of grace that Barth and the modern lutheraans teach is only for the elect that will inherit eternal life, those that God will save by grace through faith and not for the whole human race. I do believe that there is a universal grace but as I explained, this universal grace is conditional on faith as I quoted the Heidelberg catechism and WCF. When we speak about unconditional grace, we have to reserve to make sure this type of grace is particular and not universal as the historic reformed confessions teach.

My only issue with confessional reformed is that most of them deny any type of universal saving grace for all men as the Heidelberg Catechism and WCF VII III teach. And like Barth understood this has caused all sorts of problems for the church, with Arminius first and Barth second trying to make up for this deficiency. In my opinion neither Barth nor Arminius succeeded. We need to go back to Luther, Cavin, Ursinus (the Heidelberg catechism), and WCF chapter VII section III to get a biblical understanding of unlimited atonement. There is hope, and actually this is already happening. Some at the gospel coalition and John Piper are realizing that beside the unconditional clause in the covenant of grace with the elect (limited atonement) , there is the conditional clause in the covenant of grace that applies to all men if they come to faith (unlimited atonement). Here is the article that affirms that limited atonement when properly understood does not contradict anything that conditional unlimited atonement (with faith as a condition for justification) teaches plus it also teaches an unconditional limited atonement (where faith is provided to the elect alone ) http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/06/24/limited-atonement/

Barth believed that all were included in the saving significance of Christ’s death (by grace), but that no one was excused from acknolwedging Jesus Christ for who he is as Lord and Savior (by faith, or by “sight” as its eschatological equivalent). He certainly affirmed 2 Cor. 5:20.

His views are more in line with Athanasius and the East than with Augustine and the West. His views are subtle and complex, but he indeed tilts strongly toward universal hope, while leaving the question open in reverent agnosticism, as I have argued in a couple of places.

WCF chapter VII
Section III.—Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

So the covenant of grace has two clauses:

1) with every single man it says: “wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved”
2) to the elect alone though it promises eternal life and the gift of faith: “promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe”

The divines understood that God’s grace is universal to all men, but that also there is a special grace for his elect that is different from the grace he offers the reprobate, insofar as the reprobate do not come to faith and do not receive the benefits of Christ.

So maybe the call to the Reformed is to go back to either the Heidelberg Catechism or the WCF since both state the same. But to affirm a covenant of grace that is particular to the elect is to reject the consensus that was reached at the Westminster Assembly, whereby the covenant of grace is conditional for every man but unconditional for the elect.

In the above sentence that I wrote I missed the word “benefits” so I include the correct sentence with the word “benefits” in capital letters:

“Now Barth also denied that the atonement is limited in its application to those that believe the gospel, that the atonement is limited IN ITS BENEFITS to the elect or believers alone was never a matter of dispute among all protestants and catholics in the 16th century.”

Even Wikipedia says that unlimited atonement never states that Jesus paid the penalty for sin for every man individually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement :

” What it does not state

Jesus paid the penalty for those who deny faith in Him, and His death was a substitutionary atonement for those who deny Him—Though the term unlimited atonement can easily give the incorrect assumption that Jesus’ payment encompassed all people, unlimited atonement maintains a limit on the legal effect. Jesus’ death was indeed an offerof a substitutionary atonement to all, but this offer was resistible; though salvation is offered to all, not all are saved. ”

And Wikipedia also points out to the commonalities between unlimited and limited atonement shared by lutherans, arminians, calvinists, and roman catholics at the time of the Reformation.

” Unlimited atonement has a number of important points in common with traditional formulations of limited atonement. Both positions affirm that:

The call of salvation can genuinely be made universally
Jesus paid the penalty only for those who have faith in Him
Jesus’ death was a substitutionary atonement only for those who accept Him”

John Davenant, the puritan theologian, explained it perfectly in his book in his book “A dissertation on the death of Christ”. Jesus on the cross purchased a right of salvation for every human being that comes to faith in him (he has promised it), God says Davenant assumed an obligation to every man that comes to faith to provide him salvation. Now this biblical definition of conditional unlimited atonement was affirmed by Ursinus as well. On objection 2 in his commentary on question 20 of the Heidelberg catechism Ursinus affirms unlimited atonement, the major is true, Christ satisfied for all men conditionally which is the same as John Davenant:

Ursinus:
“Obj. 2. All those ought to be received into favor for whose offences a sufficient satisfaction has been made. Christ has made a sufficient satisfaction for the offenses of all men. Therefore all ought to be received into favor; and if this is not done, God is either unjust to men, or else there is something detracted from the merit of Christ. Ans. The major is true, unless some condition is added to the satisfaction; as, that only those are saved through it, who apply it unto themselves by faith. But this condition is expressly added, where it is said, ” God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16.)”

Now Karl Barth and John Owen both departed from the Heidelberg catechism. Barth by teaching a universal unconditional atonement, and Owen by denying the conditional unlimited atonement taught by Ursinus and Davenant. Now Barth also denied that the atonement is limited in its application to those that believe the gospel, that the atonement is limited to the elect or believers alone was never a matter of dispute among all protestants and catholics in the 16th century. Of course Ursinus and Davenant held to unlimited atonement in the manner I explained, they also affirmed the traditional Reformed doctrine of limited atonement, in that Christ’s purpose was to redeem the elect. This is why John Piper correctly affirms an unlimited / limited atonement doctrine which is the teaching of the Heidelberg catechism, and John Davenant’s writing “A dissertation on the death of Christ” is the most accurate interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism that I have read.

This is why I consider Barth not to be an orthodox christian. When there are problems in the theology of the atonement, then this will affect your whole theology, exposition, and preaching. And this does not apply to Barth alone, John Owen is as guilty for going the other extreme. And I think Karl Barth is a reaction to extreme rationalistic calvinism, but unfortunately he went to the other extreme. This is why I suggested that the Reformed need to go back to the Heidelberg catechism.

Now with regard to your book, I agree on your dispute with McCormack. The trinity precedes the decree of election in Barth’s theology. And yes the comparison that you make that McCormack is reading Barth like the rationalistic calvinists read Calvin is accurate in my opinion.

Having said that, I want to express my gratitude again for this review and the hard work that went into producing it. God bless you.

I would only point out that I do not think the difference between evangelical and rationalistic Calvinism, as interpreted by Torrance, maps onto the “Calvin vs. Calvinists” debate. In any case, the review overlooks that my interest in Torrance’s distinction is mainly methodological.

As to the Comment about Barth on Adam, I think that if you would affirm a historical Adam, as I would, you will not find it gratly incompatible with Barth, even though he essentially side-steps the question. On the whole, I think A. Plantinga is better here.

Moreover, anyone who wants to affirm Ursinus and the Heidelberg Catechism, as I would, can also still learn a lot form Barth.

Thank you again for this fine review.

You have to be aware of the extent to which Barth counts on the Word Itself to make Itself known. If you don’t recognize that, you will think that Barth hasn’t any true content. He always and only works in support of the work of the Spirit – there is no separate logical realm of thought for Barth. When you read Barth don’t look for proofs but wait and read in prayer.

Greg Irwin

But one thing is this Bruce, if Barth repented of his sin and put his faith in Jesus Christ alone he is with Christ right now. And sermons by Barth like this one https://iheartbarth.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/saved-by-grace-a-sermon-by-karl-barth/ indicates to me that he was a Christian and is in heaven now. His theology may have been flawed, but nobody is saved by theological knowledge. So as difficult as it appears to me that somebody that denies the historic events of the bible which are foundational to the promises associated with them, and somebody that would not preach about the lost condition of man, and instead jump directly to man’s redeemed state (even the unregenerate are redeemed and risen with Christ according to Barth), in spit of all this there are many indication like Barth’s words and writings the night before his death, that Karl Barth has trusted in the promises of the gospel. he probably came to faith when he was studying Augustine or Luther or Calvin, and then forgot all about it, and built a theology about redeemed man which is really beautiful but only when applied to those that have faith and not to all unregenerate man. The doctrine of redemption, and the redemption in Christ Jesus applies to “whosoever believes”, not to the whole human race, the promises of the gospel are not for all of man kind but for those that will come to Christ, “whosoever believes”, the elect. Barth never saw it or got confused, but regardless of this, and even though we do not owe any charity to his faulty theology, we do owe him charity in that he in all likelihood is a fellow christian brother, a saint of the past. But only God knows it for certain, I do not, but I owe him charity to his confession of Christ as his Savior in spite of theological differences.

Bruce, this is a hypothesis that I would never even consider. I have no reason to doubt the historical Adam, Satan may from time to time try to assail our faith and pose a question like, “what if Adam didn’t exist”? Well I would refer anybody that doubts God’s historic account of creation to Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” I am sorry Bruce, but the creation of Adam as the first man out of the dust of the earth I can only believe by faith through the holy spirit, I can’t rationally discuss this with your or a scientist because neither of us have any evidence. Creation is a matter of faith as I quoted from scripture, and the holy spirit alone can create this faith. From natural revelation I can not prove or disprove the existence of a historic Adam.

The problem with Barth goes beyond a historical Adam, his whole doctrine of revelation is plagued with a denial of the bible as a historic witness. Basically the events of the bible are saga says Barth, they did not actually take place in history. Saga is so pervasive says Barth that it is all over the bible, read here http://postbarthian.com/2015/01/05/karl-barths-definition-saga/ So your hypothetical question about Karl Barth being right would throw out pretty much everything we know about christianity. The bible is not reliable any more, is just a bunch inspired poems that enlighten us. You may think I am exagerating, but I am not, if we can not search the scriptures and trust them to find answers then the christian faith loses all credibility as far as truth and the authors of the are liars. Like Paul says about the resurrection, if Christ isn’t risen, then we are liars 1 Corinthians 15:15 . Barth denied the historical resurrection of Jesus at the beginning of his theological career, and then accepted it as historical event. But the same applies to Adam, if Adam was not the first man made out of dust by God then the author of Genesis is lying. Because he is portraying a historic event that never happened. Adam and Eve begot Abel, Cain, and Seth. How is this possible if Adam was not a historical figure ? Basically we can not rely on scripture any more, and the foundation of our faith is destroyed, let us not forget that sola scriptura was one of the 5 solas of the Reformation. And if we throw out sola scriptura we are in trouble, and I wasted countless hours of my life studying a book and a testimony that attests to historic events and the promises associated with those events, but in fact none of this may ever have happened. It could all be saga for all I know, if I were to trust Barth. I trust the apostle Paul who had high view of scripture, i trust Jesus who testified that all scripture pointed out to him and witnessed to him. And certainly if the book of Genesis was inaccurate, the book that contains the promises of God to Abraham, Jesus would have had something to say about it. But Jesus had a high view of scripture, and I trust his testimony about scripture and dismiss Barth’s empty speculations.

Regarding your first point, lets assume for a moment that Barth was right and there was no biblical Adam in history, how would your reply change?

I am wondering how many of the Reformed today would affirm that Christ propitiated the wrath of God for all mankind. And this is exactly what Q37 says that Christ suffered for the anger of God against all mankind. In his commentary Ursinus magnificently answers under Objection 4 those that say that if that were so then everybody would go to heaven, by pointing out that Christ died for all as far as making full satisfaction for the sins of mankind and this is so as to guarantee a full sufficiency of the atonement, Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but Christ’s did satisfy for the elect alone as far as the application of his death to the believer (conversion in repentance and faith which belongs to the elect alone). And on his commentary on Question 20 of the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus is even more emphatic that Christ’s death bore the sins of all mankind, but this universal salvation only benefits those that receive it through faith, so not everybody goes to heaven. In this way Ursinus fully agrees with Barth on 1 Corinthians 5:19 as far as God being reconciled to man and as Paul says not imputing the sin to all of mankind. But Ursinus also clarifies that God’s work includes the application of the atonement or conversion of sinners, and this application is limited to the elect alone. So the atonement is limited only in its application for Ursinus. So unlike Barth, Ursinus indicates in his commentary on Q20 of the Heidelberg catechism that there is condition to salvation and this is that it must be received by faith. And God accomplishes this through the effectual call which applies to the elect alone. So in this sense only is the atonement limited.

So how many Reformed would agree with Ursinus today ? I would say very few, most are limiting the atonement in its sufficiency and deny that Christ bore the sins of the whole world and this is where I believe evangelical calvinism is destroyed. There is a fundamental difference between Ursinus and John Owen, between evangelical and rationalistic calvinism. For Ursinus and evangelical calvinists God has propitiated the sins of all mankind, the whole human race. it is only the application of the atonement that is limited to the elect only, in that God regenerates only his elect and leaves the rest in unbelief as a punishment for their sin. This is the teaching of Ursinus, John Calvin, the Heidelberg Catechism, and evangelical calvinism. Rationalistic calvinism took over after Beza and the confrontation with the Arminians helped its rise. Here’s the link to Ursinus full commentary on the Heidelberg catechism, please read his commentary on questions 20 and 37 from where I quoted http://www.seeking4truth.com/ursinus/zutblcont.htm

Barth will keep haunting the Reformed faith and have credibility with many in the Reformed camp until such time as the Reformed return to the Heidelberg Catechism’s teachings.

i missed the word ignores in my first post:
“But Barth aboslutely IGNORES the next verse, 2:Corinthians 5:20 ” is how it should have read.

Paul teaches that God is reconciled to the whole world in 5:19, but now in 5:20 God tells the world to be reconciled to God. It is not sufficient that God is reconciled to the world and has not imputed their trespases (verse 5:19), we ought to receive this gift by faith where Paul commands us “be you reconciled to God” (verse 5:20). And Barth’s theology is universalism because it is based on verse 19 and deletes verse 20 from scripture, resulting in an unconditional universalism.

1) Denies the historical Adam. Denies the fall, man was always a sinner.
2) Teaches that Christ had a fallen or sinful nature. He says Christ didn’t sin ,but he adds that Christ’s nature was like the nature of every man after the fall. Well, the Reformers correctly taught the biblical understanding that a fallen nature is incapable of doing any good. So how can Christ have had a sinful nature as Barth teaches ?
3) Barth taught that we can not speak about sin and we can not understand the Law unless we preach grace first and understand grace. Nobody that has not accepted Christ’s grace should be taught the Law according to Barth. Well, how is anybody going to even think they need grace when they do not see themselves as transgressors in need of salvation from sin. Basically any faith that comes from Barth preaching will be like the faith of the devils, people may come to Christ, but not to be saved from their sin. This is because Barth does not allow for the preaching of sin prior to the preaching of grace.
4) Barth was a universalist that preached that mankind is already redeemed without any need of repentance and faith. He completely removed the accusatory function of the law, so that nobody can ever be convicted of sin. His Christ is not the savior of the world , but somebody that has given the whole world a license to sin and said Yes to unregenerate man, a Christ that loves everybody (both Jacob and Esau), elect and reprobate, believer and unbeliever.

Yes, the above conclusions may be harsh. But I can support each and every one of them, that this is the core of Barth’s theology. The end result of Karl Barth’s theology are Brian McLaren and Rob Bell and other more mainstream evangelicals that do not preach about sin any more. Regardless whether Barth thought that not every goes to heaven, his theology is universalism, and those that believe his gospel have in all likelihood never repented of their sin personally. I do not see how any Barthian (unless they misunderstood Barth) can work out his salvation with fear and trembling, when the God they worship is a Santa Claus that loves everybody and never exhibits the wrath against all ungodliness that the God of the Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does.

Yes, I agreewith Barth that Christ has propitiated the wrath of God against all mankind, yes I agree that Christ has reconciled the whole world, the whole human race to himself not imputing their trespasses. Barth’s favorite scripture 2 Corinthians 5:19 teaches so and Barth interprets it correctly. But Barth aboslutely the next verse, 2:Corinthians 5:20 where Paul tells the world “be reconciled to God”, this beautiful salvation of verse 19 needs to be received as Paul commands in verse 20. And very few receive Christ and are reconciled to God. The vast majority of the world are under God’s wrath, contrary to Barth’s teaching that the whole world is under the love of God. Barth denies that every man is in Adam, dead in trespasses and sins, unreconciled to God, under God’s wrath, until such time that he receives Christ by faith.

So going back to my first question. Why should I show charity to a heretic that does not call sinners to repentance but declares the whole human race redeemed?