A Barthian argument against (church) dogmatic universalism?

[JasonPratt]

Chris’ main post was about methodology more than about the theological details themselves. In other words, how to go about deciding

what the implications of Christ are for soteriology. If there are inherent problems with trying to figure out what those implications are, then that becomes a logically prior argument against attempts (like in K&R’s book) to figure out what those implications are. The first line of criticism starts before the details of their arguments.

That’s why Chris isn’t (yet) discussing the details of K&R’s arguments.

My friend. I do understand that. I am not saying, he nor the book never recognizes or acknowledges Jesus Christ, but that Christ not being mentioned at all in what the OP wrote is troubling to me. That’s all

Oxy,

If you understand that Chris’ post was very focused on how to go about deciding what the implications of Christ are for soteriology; and that this technical focus is the only reason why he happened not to mention Christ in the OP; and that the men in the books he cites mention and recognize and acknowledge Christ and moreover infer their beliefs (be they right or wrong) from the details of Jesus Christ (which was in fact the whole point of Chris’ OP, as anyone who has read much of anything from Karl Barth would know); and that Christian universalists in our books and articles and discussions routinely discuss Jesus Christ as the foundation of our salvation and of our hope and expectation for the salvation of all sinners from sin, including on this forum you’ve been posting to for months…

…then I have to say I don’t understand at all why you’re still troubled by the OP. Much less why to begin with you wrote (with your original emphasis) “I am only expressing what I constantly observe when talking to a universalist or reading their material”, and (my emphasis) “What worries me about what you [CT] wrote, the books and men you quoted, not to mention universalism as a whole. There is not one mention of Jesus Christ.”

But maybe you should create a new thread to explain what worries and troubles you about us regularly talking about and inferring our beliefs from Jesus Christ that you constantly observe us not doing even once.

[christilling]

Dear Jason,
Thanks, this is a very helpful response.

“So a theologian who arrives at universalism from implications of theological details about Jesus Christ, is thereby exempted from such a critique”

I think this is the crux of the issue, yes. And you make some important distinctions between the “churches” and the “I”. So what you are saying is that the distinction should not be between “dogmatic” and “persuaded”, but rather between wider church dogmatics on the one hand (as a statement of fact about what the wider church indeed confesses), and what the individual believer takes to be dogmatic truth. To be honest, it has this going for it: surely it would be difficult to say that one is *persuaded *by something, and at the same time not say that one *believes *that something. What it might not have going for it is some kind of acknowledgement of a ranking of importance, between the norma normans, *norma normata *and theologoumena (the last is, of course, where Robin Parry locates his Evangelical universalism). What do you think?

[james.goetz]

Hi Chris,

Could you please help me by providing clear distinct definitions of norma normans and norma normata?

I need to back peddle and say that I am not a dogmatic hopeful universalist but a doctrinal hopeful universalist. I typically make distinction between primary doctrine such as the deity of Christ and secondary doctrine such as most eschatology. And I should not refer to secondary doctrine as dogma, even if I [am] correct with it.

I’ll convert my rankings to norma normans, norma normata, and theologoumena as soon as I understand the difference of the first two terms.