Barth’s Rejection of Christian Universalism: CD I/2 §16, 37

Posted on by

Recently I was having a bit of discussion with some fellows about Karl Barth and Christian Universalism. They both claimed or asserted that Barth maintained a Dogmatic Christian Universalist position, while I maintained that he didn’t. I knew he didn’t, and have read him that way directly. Unfortunately, in that moment, I didn’t have a pertinent quote from Barth himself at hand; now I do. The confusion is easy to understand with reference to Barth; he does maintain a doctrine of election that encompasses all of humanity. As such, for Barth, if we want to use this sort of grammar, he believes that the extent of the atonement is objectively (and subjectively, grounded in Christ) universal. Yet while he holds to his unique, but Gospel-faithful (I take it to be) reformulated Reformed doctrine of election, he also maintains the classic position on ‘final salvation.’ Barth believes in what the Bible ‘teaches’ (at least for my money); that is, Barth believes that people who do not come to repentance will be eternally destroyed in outer darkness (e.g. not annihilationism either).

To prove my assertion about Barth let me offer the pertinent quote. In the broader context Barth is indeed talking about justification/salvation, and how that is fully actualized for all of humanity in the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. Following this snippet from Barth, he gets into Pneumatology and his doctrine of the Holy Spirit vis-à-vis salvation. But for our purposes this small quote from Barth should suffice (if not, pick up his CD and read the context for yourself). Barth writes:

It is the truth, even if man is not in the truth. It is true that God is with us in Christ and that we are his children, even if we ourselves do not perceive it. It is true from all eternity, for Jesus Christ who assumed our nature is the eternal Son of God. And it is always true in time, even before we perceive it to be true. It is still true even if we never perceive it to be true, except that in this case it is true to our eternal destruction.[1]

Rather clear, eh? It is true that many of Barth’s followers hold to a dogmatic form of Christian Universalism; and they do indeed attach it to what they think is taking Barth’s theo-logic to its logical conclusion. But Barth himself, as Hunsinger might call him, ‘the textual Barth,’ rejects Christian Universalism (even if he had theological space to remain ‘hopeful’). Barth’s rejection of universalism was grounded in his radical commitment to Divine freedom. Barth believed that if we foreclosed on God, and what he ‘must’ do, in regard to final salvation, that God’s freedom would be squashed, and His identity as God compromised. The press back to this could be: ‘Well, Barth apparently believes that God does indeed damn people to an eternal hell; how is this not a foreclosure?’ Barth might respond: ‘Because God freely chose this, and not that.’

Others might say: ‘Who cares what Barth thinks!’ Tru Dat. Ultimately as Protestant Christians we will hang our hats on what Holy Scripture teaches. In this case, though, I maintain, that Barth is following Scripture’s teaching; and his theo-logic, in my view, is spot on. Divine Freedom is of the utmost; it means that God is God and we are not. We must acknowledge Divine freedom, and allow Scripture’s teaching to curtail the way we see that applied in the economy of God’s life in Christ. Yes, many have been arguing, attempting to from Scripture’s teaching, that the Bible teaches Christian Universalism. But I’ve read all of that, and I don’t think these arguments are successful; nor did Barth (at least the arguments he would have been aware of at his time).

At the finis, I wish all could be saved. But currently, as I understand Scripture’s teaching, along with Barth, I have to conclude that people who die without Christ as their Lord and Savior, in a ‘perceived’ and repentant way, will be eternally separated from the elect life of God in Jesus Christ. In other words, they will not die in union with Christ who is eternal life for them. This means we ought to be proclaiming Jesus from the rooftops, so that faith, which comes by hearing, hearing the Word of God, might penetrate the hearts of those on the broad way, and allow them to enter the narrow way of eternal life in Christ.

[1] Barth, CD I/2 §16, 37 [emboldening mine].

32 thoughts on “Barth’s Rejection of Christian Universalism: CD I/2 §16, 37”

  1. Good, balanced post, Bobby. I like this quote from Barth: “I don’t teach it [universalism], but I don’t not teach it.”

  2. Yeah, there is a measured ambivalence in Barth on this. But it is all framed by his necessary commitment to Divine Freedom. His whole theological project is contingent upon that. It allows him to stay “open,” on certain things; while also dialectically closed.

  4. Absolutely; one of the things I admire most about Barth is that he does not wish to seal everything up in hermetically sealed, watertight, all-encompassing propositions with all “the taus and iotas dotted and crossed” (I think this last phrase is from one of your posts). His humility before an ineffable God is a model for theology (in my view) yet it still leaves room for God to further reveal himself to us.

    Thanks for the link, Bobby. I’m currently working my way through your blog and this will be a useful resource on universalism.

  6. That’s too bad that Barth missed out on the joy of universal salvation. I moved in my thinking from hopeful universalist to convinced universalist. So stoked for David Bentley Hart’s new book in September.

  7. Tim, I mean, sure, who wouldn’t *want to believe* in universalism. Barth offers some more nuanced thoughts on this in CD IV, but ultimately still rejects a dogmatic universalism. There is joy to be had in knowing God, and trusting Him in His wisdom. Barth found great joy in that, and indeed that God’s ways and thoughts are not our own.

    I’ve heard DBH give a presentation on his forthcoming book. It is not ultimately persuasive because I think it indeed does not comport w/ biblical teaching. And per Barth’s own thinking, it forces God one way (our way), rather than allowing God the space that He alone inhabits. DBH’s premises and argument is self-referentially coherent—like per his own constructed system and definitions—but it, again, must past other correspondences that determine whether it is ultimately sound or not. Ie meaning: does his argument correspond with biblical teaching and theo-logic that itself is derived from the implications of God’s self revelation in Christ.

  8. Hi Bobby,
    After reading your post I wanted to ask you if you believe, as an evangelical Calvinist, that the triune God would accept a genuine human repentance post-mortem? I suppose at the Day of Judgement when Christ returns.
    What is your opinion on this?
    Thanks a lot.
    Brian

  9. Hi Brian, no I don’t hold to a post-mortem position. The post-mortem position is the dogmatic Christian universalist view.

  10. Pingback: Barth’s Rejection of Christian Universalism: CD I/2 §16, 37 | James' Ramblings

  11. Ok good to know Bobby. I am not a Christian universalist and I don’t hold to it dogmatically but, to date, I can’t find anything biblically that would rule this position out.

  12. I can point you to a bazillion passages of scripture that rule universalism out; not to mention church trad in the main.

  13. Others searching for the quote, (in the differently numbered volumes), will find it at:
    Barth, CD I/2 §16, 238 (Hendrickson Publishers)

  14. “I can point you to a bazillion passages of scripture that rule universalism out; not to mention church trad in the main.”
    Hi Bobby I think I may not have made my post clear. I was trying to say that, like you, I do not hold to Christian Universalism. The position I am not able to rule out biblically is Post-Mortem Repentance. I am open to it and think it is plausible.

  16. Bobby if I am understanding your point correctly, then I would now like to say that one can reasonably affirm the possibility of Post-Mortem Repentance without at the same time maintaining Christian Universalism.
    In other words, hypothetically just because God is open to receiving human’s repentance after natural death, doesn’t necessarily mean that every human who hasn’t repented before they die, will at some point repent after they die. Some may not.
    So sadly from the human perspective I believe that at least some people will not ever repent and believe Jesus is Lord. But I also believe that God will be open to them doing so, at least for a time, after the end of their earthly life.

  17. Yes, but Brian, what I am saying, is that the post-mortem point is the NECESSARY requirement for Christian Universalism to work; and they all MUST and do use it as THE mechanism that allows for their conclusion of universalism. They maintain that given enough time, based upon the pedagogical nature of hell, all, post-mortem will finally say yes to the irresistible love and beauty of God’s call for them in Christ.

    As far as any sort of scriptural basis for the possibility of post-mortem salvation, there is none! What passages of Scripture do you think support that? The only way certain passages are appealed to in that way, are first FRAMED by prior Christian universalist theological suppositions. So you need to show passages that teach the possibility of post-mortem salvation, without also appealing to Christian universalist logic; or your distinction is non-starting.

  18. Ok Bobby I knew that was what you were saying in reference to Christian Universalism.
    Because I know that, my last comment was just to clarify for you what I believe regarding Post-Mortem repentance. Again, I am not a Christian Universalist.
    As far as scriptural support for Post-Mortem Repentance I can think of none off the top of my head which explicitly prove it. I can also think of none which disprove it. So I am left with making a conclusion based on what all of scripture adds up to. I can think of many instances in the NT where authors, or Jesus Himself, should have mentioned a very important time restriction, if one exists, when it comes to God accepting the human response of repentance. (ex. Jesus on the cross between the two other men). Strangely no time restriction is every mentioned as far as I know. So, in my thinking, why create one? So again if you know of a passage where a time restriction on when God will stop receiving man’s repentance please let me know of it so I may repent myself of these ideas. Thanks.

  19. I know of many passages that place a “time-limit”, I’ll provide some examples later; they are pervasive. I guess I don’t understand your assertion; particularly in light of the many passages of Scripture that state exactly what you say it doesn’t. Church tradition itself militates against your assertion by its very tradition, in regard to the belief that the possibility for salvation is limited to this time-frame continuum. After that’s over, then comes the judgment (in re to ‘personal eschatology’ vis a vis corporate eschatology).

  20. Here’s one:

    27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9

    And another:

    26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. I Cor 15

    And one more:

    11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second [d]death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev 20

    And this (and the men/de construction in the Greek along with the participials underscores the absolute distinction and ongoing and present reality of either of these two states–ie they represent two unending categories or types of people) :

    18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. I Cor 1

    There are many more, but these will have to suffice for the moment.

  21. Thanks for putting these passages out there for the rest of your blog admirers like me 🙂 to consider.
    Ok I respectfully don’t see in them, however, that when Judgement Day occurs for all of us after our natural deaths or at Christ’s second coming, people who were not followers of Christ while they were alive, will not be able to then genuinely repent and voluntarily bow their knee to Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

    The first passage just says men will die and then sometime after death, God’s judgement comes. Yes that is true. So how does that fact prove that at the judgement day, God will not accept man’s repentance? Where are the “time limit” passages…that is, the time limit on when God will no longer accept man’s genuine repentance?
    So my assertion is this: there are no NT passages that I have found which specify a particular time, after which God will no longer accept man’s genuine repentance, turning to God for life and rescue.

    As for the rest of your passages, since I am not sure what you wanted to do with 1 Cor. 15 or 1, I will address Revelation 20.
    Yes, it pertains to God’s judgment (Gk Krisi) and no, it does not refer to a certain time when one is no longer able to genuinely ask for God’s forgiveness and mercy, and God responding. If we have freedom of the will before we die why think we will lose it afterward? Furthermore, if we think God loves us before we die, then why think He would change His disposition toward us after we die our natural deaths?

    Do you understand my assertion better now Bobby? If I know you from reading and listening to your podcasts then I would think you and I would agree on this. 🙂

  22. No, we don’t agree, Brian. I’ll explain the point I’m making with Rev 20 and I Cor 15 later. The I Cor 1.18 grammatical construct doesn’t allow for your reading, at all (I did my master’s thesis on that passage and have the work to demonstrate how that repudiates the possibility for post-mortem salvation). And the Hebrews passage also militates against your reading, if read in the context of its greek construction.

    I’m not sure how you would pick up that I would affirm a post-mortem salvation. Again, one is only motivated towards that reading of scripture from an a priori commitment to a universalistic frame of reference. There is nothing in what I’ve written, or said that would ever indicate that I would maintain the possibility for post-mortem salvation. I didn’t even mention the passages that state the judgment is FINAL and ETERNAL. But if you’re aware of the intratextual context of Rev 20 you should have already picked up on that.

  23. Yes Bobby, I did think that you would agree with me on this, before I asked my initial question about Post-Mortem Repentance. I thought then that you would agree with me that in the Judgment, everyone will face Jesus, the Judge who died for all, and they will have to decide whether they will trust Him. Those who trust their Savior take part in the joy of the life God has given them in Christ.Those who reject Him continue in their hostility and the hell that goes with it.
    But apparently you do not agree. Here’s my question for you. If not the above, then I would like to read a statement from you about what an Evangelical Calvinist thinks will happen on Judgment day for all people. I assume you believe we are all going to meet Jesus in some fashion so what happens next in the view of EC?
    Also, I am interested in reading your thesis on Hebrews 9. Especially the part which you think repudiates Post-Mortem Repentance. Thanks a lot. I appreciate this dialog.

  24. Brian, my position is the classical majority position of the orthodox Church; it isn’t an innovation or even novel. Yes, Revelation, for example, makes clear that all people will stand personally before the Lord one way or the other. So far you haven’t given me anything substantial in regard to your position; other than you saying “I just don’t see it.” But that’s not an argument, and gives me nothing critical to respond to.

    My thesis was on the pericope I Cor 1.17-25. I did analytical exegesis of each of the verses in that pericope; including v18 which I pointed you to.

    What I’d like to see from you is an actual argument for your position; at least give some lineaments for it. The Apostle’s Creed will suffice for a statement on what ECrs believe will happen at judgment. We are in line with the trad of the church, and I’d say the biblical teaching on this locus. I have more to say, but not enough time to say it. So far you haven’t responded to me pointing you to the character of the judgment noted in Revelation. It is “everlasting,” and final according to the prima facie teaching of that book. The burden isn’t on me to demonstrate otherwise, since I’m affirming what the church, in the main, always has; you aren’t. So you need to meet the burden, beyond just saying “I don’t see it.”

  25. Oops sorry I mixed up 1 Cor. 17-25 with Hebrews 9.
    Bobby from reading your comment I do see we agree that all people will stand personally before the Lord one way or another. So I want to again press my question to you. What happens next in your view? So far you’ve mentioned the Apostles Creed, presumably Jesus Christ will come again to “judge the living and the dead.” That really will not suffice especially when real people seek the truth of the matter in church when their loved one dies and they ask this very fair question to church leaders like happened to me as a Pastor.
    My answer is what I wrote earlier. I said this to the sad face of a church member on multiple occasions. At the Judgment when Christ returns, everyone will face Jesus, the Judge who died for all, and they will have to decide whether they will trust Him. Those who trust their Savior take part in the joy of the life God has given them in Christ. Those who reject Him continue in their hostility and the hell that goes with it. Bobby I know you struggled with cancer so this question must have crossed your mind at some point. What is your answer? We all stand before Jesus, then what?

    I want to honor your request for a positive argument for my view– that at least at some point or length of time after a person’s natural death, they will have the opportunity to genuinely repent and believe the gospel and that God will respond to their repentance in the same way He does before our natural death. I will work on that.

    Thanks again,
    Brian

  26. Regarding Post-Mortem Repentance, (that at least at some point or length of time after a person’s natural death, they will have the opportunity to genuinely repent and believe the gospel and that God will respond to their repentance in the same way He does before our natural death.)

    I agree with Robin Parry* who argues that “there isn’t explicit support for this notion, but there isn’t explicit evidence against it either.” Focus on the word explicit.

    I appeal to Christian Theo-logic and the entire metanarrative of the Bible. Does death somehow fix us in some eternally sinful state? i.e. Do we lose our freewill? It seems to me no it does not and no we do not. Does God still love sinners after their natural deaths? It seems to me He does.
    I think we all know people who were friendly to the Christian worldview but didn’t actually give their full allegiance to Jesus Christ before they died. I believe they will still be themselves, as it were, on Judgment Day and, if they were allowed to, would put their trust in the risen Jesus. It would be common sense for them to do so. I just can’t think of why God would send them to perhaps eternal conscious punishment against their will on Judgment Day. Can you or anybody reading this think of a reason? Any other commenters want to weigh in?
    Anyway that is my attempt at argumentation.
    Thanks again,
    Brian

    * I know Robin Parry is a Christian Universalist but I am not.

  27. Yes, I have plenty to respond with, Brian. But so far you have made an argument from Scripture. And you’re illustrating my earlier point about where this concept of post mortem salvation comes from as a framed theological supposition. But I’ll have to get back.

  28. Okay I look forward to it Bobby. Again we agree that all people will stand personally before the Lord one way or another. So I hope when you write again you’ll provide your view on what happens next? I provided my provisional view in a fairly brief statement. I understand I may be totally wrong and I am persuadable.
    It would advance this dialog if you could briefly provide your view. Thanks.

  29. I already did provide my view—multiple times!—on what happens next. But still, I haven’t seen an argument from you that is exegetically based. You ought to connect death as the last enemy in I Cor 15 and Rev 20, and think these into each other. But what’s interesting is that you are using universalist logic, without claiming to be a universalist; which is rather hard to take logically seriously.

  30. I’ll make this my last comment and it will be to point out the observation that you Bobby exemplify numerous other Christians I have talked to about this who, like you, 1) vehemently disagree that Post-Mortem Repentance is even possible and 2) will not provide their personal view in plain modern day language about what happens after people meet Jesus on Judgment Day. I can only speculate on why this is but, for the purposes of advancing the dialog, I wish they and you would have.
    Also, if you want to put a label on my thinking and call it “universalist logic” then that’s up to you but you haven’t dealt with the particulars. I offered you challenges in terms of man’s free will, God’s character, and the general metanarrative of the Bible and its silence on explicit time restriction language. And you say its hard to take that “logically seriously.” (not sure what you mean by that)

    Ok then, thanks for your time and at least I know where you stand on this issue.

  31. Brian, I told you what I think in plain language. It doesn’t get any clearer than the Apostle’s Creed! What are you talking about?! I believe when people die their “fate” is sealed one way or the other. If they die without Christ they will face the judgment, which is eternal separation from God’s life in Christ; just as I made clear in my post!

    You have offered NO “particulars.” I’ve been asking you to present some with reference to Scripture, and so far you’ve remained silent. The only reason I haven’t responded at length to you is purely because of time—if you’ll notice I haven’t posted any new blog posts lately either (because of lack of time issues). I have given you hints at what way I would argue from Scripture, and your response has been “I just don’t see it.” Then your further response has been to appeal to the logic that The Evangelical Universalist,” Robin Parry deploys in order to forward his version of Christian Universalism.

    Again, you haven’t even begun to present an argument for me to respond to. And, again, it’s your burden, not mine to defend your non-traditional reading of Scripture on this issue. So far, you haven’t even given me an inkling in how you would do this. So, for meaningful dialogue—which you started—to proceed, you still need to present an actual argument from SCRIPTURE on this in order to give me something to respond to.

  32. Pingback: A Brief Contra to the Possibility for Post-Mortem Salvation: With Reference to New Testament Teaching | The Evangelical Calvinist

Comments are closed.