Karl Barth on Universalism

[nimblewill]

Have you folks read much of Barth, What do you think about this?

Universalism?

Barth has also been criticized for his alleged belief in universalism, however, Barth himself noted that insistence on necessary universal salvation impinged on God’s freedom and suggested it was beyond the church’s duty to speculate on the subject (Church Dogmatics 2.2, 417). “For Barth, the grace of God is characterised by freedom. On the one hand, this means that we can never impose limits on the scope of grace; and on the other hand, it means that we can never impose a universalist ‘system’ on grace. In either case, we would be compromising the freedom of grace - we would be presuming that we can define the exact scope of God’s liberality. So Barth’s theology of grace includes a dialectical protest: Barth protests both against a system of universalism and against a denial of universalism! The crucial point is that God’s grace is free grace: it is nothing other than God himself acting in freedom. And if God acts in freedom, then we can neither deny nor affirm the possibility of universal salvation.” [4]

Barth says that,

"The proclamation of the Church must make allowance for this freedom of grace. Apokatastasis Panton? No, for a grace which automatically would ultimately have to embrace each and every one would certainly not be free grace. It surely would not be God's grace. But would it be God's free grace if we could absolutely deny that it could do that? Has Christ been sacrificed only for our sins? Has he not ... been sacrificed for the whole world? ... [Thus] the freedom of grace is preserved on both these sides." [5] 

For Barth, then, we can neither affirm nor deny the possibility that all will be saved. So what can we do? Barth’s answer is clear: we can hope (see CD IV/3, pp. 477-78). [6]

theopedia.com/Theology_of_Ka … rsalism.3F

On election-

Barth’s doctrine of election involves a firm rejection of the notion of an absolute decree. In keeping with his Christo-centric methodology, Barth argues that to ascribe the salvation or damnation of humanity to an abstract and absolute decree is to make some part of God more final and definitive than God’s saving act in Jesus Christ. God’s absolute decree, if one may speak of such a thing, is God’s gracious decision to be “for” humanity in the person of Jesus Christ (Barth calls this God’s “Yes”). With the earlier Reformed tradition, Barth retains the notion of double predestination, but he makes Jesus simultaneously the object and subject of both divine election and reprobation: Jesus embodies God’s election of humanity and God’s rejection of human sin. He is the electing God and the elect man. As the electing God, Jesus elects all of humanity in himself. And thus, as the elected man, all who are “in Christ” are elect in him. Non-believers, it is said, have simply not realized or recognized their election in Christ.

While some regard this revision of the doctrine of election as an improvement on the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination,[citation needed] critics have charged that Barth’s view amounts to an implicit universalism.

[AllanS]

It seems to me that God is free to act out his essential nature. If his nature is love, then universalism isn’t a limitation imposed on his freedom, but a glorious expression of it.

[Sherman]

I don’t see how belief in UR in any way impinges on God’s freedom. If He chose or chooses to torture people forever, then He’s God and He could do that and who would hold him accountable. I also do not understand how having faith that the promises of scripture concerning the salvation of all humanity is “speculating on the subject.” If scripture affirms UR, then such does not call for speculation about God’s freedom to do as He wills but for faith in what He has promised. It also doesn’t make sense to me that one can “presume” upon God’s liberality for ones own salvation and not “presume” upon God’s liberality for the salvation of others also.

[tjohnson21]

Is not God a Just God? Yes, hes free, but does that mean he can change ALL the rules hes revealed to us in the word? Something about staying true to the word that has been made CLEAR to us. what is it? im a young guy, idk all the awnsers but what do you think?

[Cindy_Skillman]

It doesn’t make sense to me that Barth, who was undeniably brilliant, couldn’t see where his own theology was headed. Therefore, I speculate that he couldn’t face the consequences to himself and family that would necessarily ensue should he have “come out” as believing in UR. Just my opinion, but a lot of you have suffered considerable persecution for your stances. Imagine the blow-back for a high profile theologian like Barth – and right in the middle of Germany’s unrest, too. He did refuse to swear loyalty to Hitler and ended up returning to Switzerland as a result, so he can’t be called a coward in any case. Lots of complications there. One can hardly blame him if he chose to keep a low profile on the subject.

[corpselight]

Is not God a Just God? Yes, hes free, but does that mean he can change ALL the rules hes revealed to us in the word? Something about staying true to the word that has been made CLEAR to us. what is it? im a young guy, idk all the awnsers but what do you think?

God’s justice flows from His identity as Love. that’s what’s clear from the Bible…
it’s interesting to read Barth’s perspective. it does look a bit like a get-out clause so he doesn’t have to publically admit to it (understandable). i don’t see the argument about God’s freedom being particularly strong, however.
God IS free to do what He likes, but He declares what He’s like in the Bible…He does not change, He does not hold onto anger indefinitely, He delights in mercy and reconciliation…
so God to me would be pursuing His own free desire to save everything He has made. could He change His mind? well of course…but He won’t.

[N8Boogie]

While I consider Bro. Barth a true gift to the Body, his apprehension in following the crumbs of Christ’s broken bread to their logical end is altogether frustrating.
We are free and God is free. I reject the framing of his position. First, and with all due respect, Bro. Barth is ensuring he has an “out”, almost anticipating that he is painting himself into a universalistic corner. It would have greatly altered the life he was accustomed to. Not a criticism. More of a pointed observation.
Secondly, setting God and men on equal footing in any comparison, voids the comparison. God’s freedom trumps our freedom. A very, infinitely dumbed-down example is that of small children who do not want to go to the dentist. They have a will. It is their will to stay home and eat more of the candy that has rotted their choppers in the first place. Then we have their mother. She also has a will which entails her children obtaining care for their teeth. Is this a battle of the wills? Not in my day it wasn’t. You see, as a child, no one ever stripped me of my will. But, because I was not the one in charge, having a will did not necessarily mean that I got my way. My mother, on the other hand, had sovereignty on her side. She had resources at her disposal that supported and necessitated the fulfillment of her will. How much more does God’s will trump, though not eliminate, or wills?
Finally, as I understood it, Mr. Barth advocated that Grace should be allowed to draw the line with regards to its own dispensing. If it were to do that, it would cease being grace. If grace ceases, so does God’s throne for it is, according to Paul, the Throne of Grace. Grace, nowhere in the scripture, is ever metered or rationed. Where much sin is, grace makes it its business to supersede it. That is its nature.
As I sign off, I must say that Bro. Barth is not right or wrong. If we believe in Sovereignty, he was what was needed. Not a stumbling block, but a brick to be built upon. We’re altogether too combative and militant. Let us see God’s hand in all things. That is what being “pure in heart” is all about. Sow peace…

[Cindy_Skillman]

Well said, N8Boogie. Exxcellent comment. If you’re willing, it would be great to have you introduce yourself in the Intro section. We’d like to greet you properly.

[Bob_Wilson]

It does seem Barth wanted to have it both ways: not insist in advance on what God will do, yet affirm a very universalist view of Christ’s work. In “My God and I,” my old prof, Lewis Smedes, tells of visiting Basel from his studies at Free University of Amsterdam, and in a forum pressing Barth on whether he affirmed universalism. He says, Barth wrongly assumed that this Calvinist American would not welcome a defense of universalism, and responded, “Young man, if you don’t believe in universalism, your problem is with the Bible!”