Karl Barth is often said to be a proponent of Christian universalism. The logic is that Barthās doctrine of election, whether he likes it or not, commits him to affirming some form of a Christian universalism (i.e., the notion that all people of all time will eventually freely submit to the reality that Jesus Christ is Lord; even if that finally only happens in hell itself). But 
Barth adamantly rejected this supposed necessity of his theological trajectory. As Douglas Campbell writes:
Barth has often been accused of universalism, but he steadfastly denied it (see the final paragraph of CD III/2), and we owe it to his intelligence and subtlety to at least examine his claims in this relation. One of his key points was a denial of any overriding of human freedom by God, although he defines that topic very carefully. This stance certainly excludes crude forms of universalism (and I myself endorse this exclusion). Another key point was his recognition of Godās freedom, which certainly seems fair as well. God acts freely, and so we cannot really circumscribe Godās activity in advance. Barth did point toward the legitimacy of hope, and even prayer, for universal salvation. However, he stopped short of predicting it. (Part of Barthās repudiation is explicable in terms of his rejection of a form of universalism understood in a āhardā Origenist fashion, as seen also in Maximus the Confessor, which overrules divine agency. These theologians claim that salvation of all must follow on the successful theosis of allāa Pelagianizing account of universalism that Barth was quite right to reject.)
Having said this. [sic] I am not sure that his development of the notion of the ultimate victory of God at length in CD IV/3 did not lead him to a theological location where the denial of universalism would in fact lead to the denial of key christological warrants, even after taking human freedom fully into account. And his christological account of election can also be invoked here in relation to Godās freedom (II/2). Godās freedom is not freedom per se but his free love towards us, which is definitively enacted in the Son prior to the foundation of the world. So perhaps some Sachkritik in relation to Barth himself is in order at this moment.[1]
Before we engage further with the implications that Campbell draws out for us in regard to Barthās rejection (or not) of Christian universalism, let us address a methodological matter. Maybe the reader has never heard of Sachkritik. In order to offer some insight into this (which has greater development here), I. Howard Marshall writes this on what Sachkritik entails:
I shall continue to refer to the method by this German name, but it will be helpful to note that the possible English equivalents for it include ācontent criticismā, ātheological criticismā, ācritical interpretationā, āmaterial criticismā and ācritical study of the contentā.7
It will not surprise you in the least that among the heroes of our tale, or, if you prefer it, the villains of the piece, we must mention R. Bultmann. Here is a comment on hisĀ Theology of the New TestamentĀ by Markus Barth, who asks how a conscientious exegete can develop a systematic exposition of Paulās theology that contradicts part of the source material:
[He can do so] only when he feels himself called toĀ SachkritikĀ on Paul, ājust as Luther used it, for example, on the Epistle of Jamesā. The victims of BultmannāsĀ SachkritikĀ include some Pauline statements on the Holy Spirit, the resurrection, the second Adam, original sin, knowledge. Naturally the hostile crumbs swept to one side byĀ SachkritikĀ include the statements about creation, predestination and the incarnation of Jesus Christ which Bultmann has demythologized. In any case Bultmann is convinced that he is putting the āreal intentionā of Paul over against the actual words of the text.ā¦ When Bultmann attributes the use of juridical, mythological, cosmological, mystical and idealistic concepts to a āsuperstitious understanding of God, the world and mankindā, he expresses as clearly and simply as possible the criteria for hisĀ Sachkritik.
Now we must be clear as to what is going on here. It is not quite the same as the attitude expressed in the words: āI want to be free to disagree with Paul.ā In that wish there is expressed a contrast between what Paul said and what I think, and if we disagree, so much the worse for Paul. That is a question of Paulās authority over against my own authority. Weāll come back to that in a moment. Rather what has been expressed is a contrast between one part of Scripture and another which stands in contradiction to it, or between what a writer actually says and what he really means. According to Tom Wright, we find an example of this in the procedure adopted by proponents of universalism.
The proponents of universalism admit very readily that their doctrine conflicts with much biblical teaching. What they are attempting, however, isĀ Sachkritik, the criticism (and rejection) of one part of Scripture on the basis of another.
That is to say, critics observe or search for places where there are doctrinal contradictions in Scripture and then have to decide which passage they are to follow in preference to the other.[2]
Essentially, as Marshall clarifies further, what the above reduces to is the following: ā. . . The result of such analysis is inevitably to force a judgment as to which texts are to be taken as expressing the real intention of a writer or the main thrust of the scripture and how they are to be interpreted. . . .ā[3]
All of the aforementioned to note that Sachkritik is a modern (German) development that took place in post-Enlightenment biblical studies. The quest, as it were, is for the exegete to properly identify what the total intention of the biblical author is in light of their whole corpus rather than simply focusing on various texts here and there. That is, there might be something in the thought of the author of Holy Scripture, that is in their respective teaching, that seems to contradict their broader teaching when their whole corpus is taken into account. It is the total teaching that then serves as determinative of how the exegete ought to understand the particular (potentially contradictory relative to the total), and place that into the total teaching of said biblical author. The criteria for this endeavor takes us too far afield to develop further for our purposes. Suffice it to say: What Campbell is referring to in Barth, and the Apostle Paul prior, is how we ought to understand these authors from within the ambit of their total teaching on a particular theological topic; in our current case that involves a doctrine of Christian universalism.
With the above noted letās return to the question at hand: should Barth be understood to finally be teaching a doctrine of Christian universalism when his total oeuvre is considered? Campbell, seems to think that just maybe we ought to conclude that if Sachkritik is applied to the total theology of Barth, as developed his Church Dogmatics, that Barthās theology must necessitate in the affirmation of a Christian universalism. But Campbell doesnāt finally take the step of absolutizing this for Barth, even by way of engaging in a Sachkritik.
Prior to Campbellās thinking on Barth, he has been engaging in an exegesis on Paulās theology with particular reference to his thinking on eschatological doctrina, such as annihilationism and Christian universalism. Campbell shows that in one sense Paul seems to teach a doctrine of annihilationism; at least as the inner-logic of his teaching is teased out. But when Paul is used to interpret Paul, as Campbell suggests ought to be an interpretive employment we ought to take seriously, as Campbell argues, what we end up with is a Paul who sounds a lot like Barthās own ending; again, according to Campbell. For Campbell, the Apostle Paulās total teaching ends up having a christological universalism latent to it. In other words, according to Campbell, Paulās total theology, even when recognizing that he also has an apparent teaching of āannihilationā present (when it comes to the final judgment), reduces to the notion that all of creation (cf. Rom. 8 etc.) will finally be redeemed. And yet, as with Barth, because of various other passages and teachings in Paul, Paul doesnāt end up with a decisive or absolute Christian universalism. Campbell sees this in a corollary with Barthās own conclusions; that is, Campbell, I would suggest, sees Barthās teaching and thinking on these things, largely reflective of the Apostle Paulās own inner-theological teachings on a doctrine of last and final things in regard to salvation. But this is a sachkritik reading of the Apostle (if not of Barth as well). Some might sense in sachkritik an antecedent in what Luther called an analogy of faith, or what we might call an analogy of Scripture. That is, the deployment of the clearer teachings of Scripture as the means by which we interpret the less clear. I think it would be right to see this, in principle, as an antecedent to sachkritik even if sachkritik finally took shape under different (modern) pressures.
Conclusion
After all of the above is considered what do I think? I agree mostly with Campbell. I donāt think Barth ought to be understood as endorsing a dogmatic Christian universalism; at most I think we see a very hopeful and prayerful Christian universalism in Barthās theology. I also tend to agree with Campbell on Paulās teaching in this regard; even if we didnāt have time to directly deal with his development on that, per se. I would always fall back to the Barth of CD III (as Campbell reads him), and emphasize a doctrine of Divine freedom as determinative of all things; including the notion that it could be a possibility that it would be in keeping with Godās purview (and character) to have made a way for people, all people, post-mortem, even while in the gruel of hell, to finally, by the Spirit, bow the knee and confess Jesus as Lord. But I donāt take this dogmatically, and my hopefulness in this is only informed by the fact that God is God and I am not; as such He could surprise us this way, and not be found to have contradicted His Word to us now and then. But this is up to God, and as far as we know now, a doctrine of dogmatic Christian universalism imposes a determination upon God that God Himself has not committed Himself to, per se. If we are going to be āgoodā sachkritiks the total canonical teaching of Holy Scripture teaches a final judgment of the (spiritually) dead that appears to be a final and unending judgment of the type that the devil and his minions will experience. Jesus taught this, and so I think it is best to temper any notion of a purported dogmatic Christian universalism by the reality that God is God, and thus the only free agent who finally determines these things. But as it stands now, based on the teaching of Scripture, unless of course we are going to step in and read Scripture from a canon within the canon, a dogmatic Christian universalism is not on the table. That is, unless the exegete has already decided a priori that the total teaching of Scripture does in fact presuppose a dogmatic Christian universalism, and then use that presupposition as regulative for how they arrive at their respective exegetical conclusions on these matters. I donāt think that is warranted; again, because of Godās freedom over against ours as His subjects.
[1] Douglas A. Campbell, Pauline Dogmatics: The Triumph of Godās Love (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020), 440.
[2] I. Howard Marshall, āAn Evangelical Approach to Theological Criticism,ā Themelios (Vol. 13:3): na. Ā
[3] Ibid.
Reformed Baptists, Freewill Baptists, so on and so forth. In this post I want to focus on a variety of Reformed Baptists currently making waves in both the Reformed and Baptist worlds. This current iteration of Baptists has certain emerging spokespersons, namely people like: Matthew Barrett, Craig Carter, and others within this tribal ilk. It is as if these folk have just realized that Christianity has a history, and that part of that history entails the theological developments present in mediaeval and Post Reformed orthodox theology. Itās as if they just heard of Thomas Aquinas, and that upon this first hearing they have felt something like Lutherās lightning strike along the dark and dreary road of the normally rationalistic Baptisticism they have been coddled in, heretofore, all their live long days. As such, they seem intent on recovering Thomas Aquinas, and Thomist theology in general, in ways that even standing on the rooftops and shouting with glee isnāt enough to atone for their past oversight of the Angelic doctorās theological speculations. And so they do podcasts, tweet tweets ad nauseum, produce podcasts, publish blog posts, and author books declaring the beauty and bounty they believe they have found in the sacrosanctity, the purist of orthodoxies, in the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and its various iterations within the broad category of the contrivances of Thomism. In their glee, in their newfound faith, so to speak, itās as if for them the whole classical tradition (so-called) is one big smashed-potato that is of apiece. In this glee they press all of classical theology, whether it be Athanasiusā patristic theology, or Thomas Aquinasā (Aristotelian) mediaeval theology, together in a way that the unbeknownst reader would think that the continuum of Christian thought just is one big consensus fidelium, one big consensus patrum, one big Great Tradition that Baptists, among all Christians, need to avail themselves of; particularly against the modern theology they have been ensnared by for so long.
believe that the classical tradition just is of an organic piece that consummates in something like Post Reformed orthodox theology (minus the Federal theology and Covenantal baptism therein). They are creating centers to promote this facile understanding of things; facile in the sense that their thesis simply does not work in regard to the lack of nuance they think the history of Christian ideas from.
counter voice online: send me Lord! There are others who I didnāt name who are central to this movement. Youāll see their names in the tweets Iām sharing as infographics as Barrett has shared them on his Twitter account (which he blocked me from seeing). People like Carl Trueman, Michael Horton, David Sytsma, Adonis Vidu et al. My intention, as I call these things out, isnāt to troll, but to alert folks to the fact that there is a better way forward to be genuinely and historically evangelical. That there is a kerygmatic, an evangelical, a Christologically concentrated, a theistically personalist and thus truly trinitarian grammatical way to be a Christian that does not simply repose in the repristination of a so-called classical theological universe conditioned by Thomas Aquinas, and his mentor, Aristotle.
