Barthology: I have a friend who used to know and understand the gospel but has since turned toward universalism. I love this guy and hate to see him carried in that direction. From time to time he sends me excerpts or links from writers who share those views. Most days I don’t even open them. Life already has enough noise and distractions, and I’ve learned that chasing every theological discussion that comes along can easily become one more. Still, every now and then I’ll glance at something he sends, partly because I care about him, and partly because these ideas continue to circulate and influence many people. Just yesterday he sent along an article interacting with some writings from Karl Barth. I took a few minutes to read through it, and while there were a number of things said that sounded good on the surface, there were also a few remarks that seemed significant enough to warrant a few comments.
While reading, I jotted down a handful of notes and thought it might be worth sharing a few of those thoughts. If nothing else, to remind myself, and perhaps caution others, that language which sounds Christ-centered does not always preserve the true testimony of Scripture. A brief disclaimer may be helpful before going further. I have not personally spent a great deal of time reading Karl Barth’s works firsthand, so I certainly do not present myself as someone deeply acquainted with his theology. Much of what I know about him comes from secondary discussions, quotations, and the general outlines of his thought that are widely known in theological circles. Even so, Barth is such a significant figure in modern theology that his name and the broad features of his ideas are familiar to many who have spent time thinking about these things. The following comments, then, are simply a few thoughts from that limited vantage point.
A few years ago I became acquainted with a brother who had begun writing books and asked if I would review some of his work and share any thoughts I might have. I tried my best, though his writing, while often anchored in Scripture, sometimes moved into deep philosophical territory and required more thought than I could easily keep up with, especially when it seemed to move beyond the plain testimony of Scripture. That was usually where my comments returned. I would remind him that when we move beyond the plain language of Scripture, it becomes easy to wander into speculation. He still sends things my way from time to time, and I value his friendship, but the same caution often finds its way into my response. In some ways, that same tendency is what I notice in the excerpts from Barth that were included in this article.
Instead of reproducing portions of the article here, I would simply like to comment on a few points that seemed to stand behind much of what was being said. These thoughts are worth considering carefully because they shape how the gospel itself is understood. The first point that stood out to me was Barth’s insistence that Christ stands at the center of all theology. In that respect there is something here worth affirming. Any approach that treats Christ as little more than an appendix to a broader moral message has already lost its way. Scripture continually brings us back to this same center. Christ is not God’s afterthought or a remedy added later in response to sin; He is the One “in whom all things consist.” Colossians 1:17. In that sense, Barth’s instinct to place Christ before sin carries a certain supralapsarian flavor that rightly recognizes Christ as central to God’s eternal purpose. Yet the language that often follows begins to move in a different direction.
When Barth speaks of God loving and electing mankind from eternity in Christ, the language sounds hopeful and deeply appealing, yet it begins to obscure the biblical distinction between those who belong to Christ and those who remain in Adam. John 10:26-27. Scripture never speaks of a universal election of humanity, and when that distinction disappears, reconciliation is no longer understood as the saving work Christ accomplished for His people, but as something presumed to belong to humanity as a whole. Titus 2:14. This distinction is not a minor detail, but part of the very structure of the biblical witness. The Bible consistently presents humanity under two representative heads: Adam and Christ. Romans 5:14. Those who are in Adam share in his death, while those who are in Christ share in His life. I Corinthians 15:22. The gospel therefore does not tell us that humanity as a whole already stands reconciled. Rather, it declares that God has accomplished reconciliation in His Son, and that this saving work belongs to those who are found in Him. Colossians 1:21-22. Once the distinction between Adam and Christ is lost, the very framework of the gospel begins to collapse. However comforting universal language may sound, Scripture consistently preserves this line, because the life it promises is found in Christ alone. John 6:40.
Another point that contains both truth and confusion is the idea that sin can only be understood in the light of Christ. In one sense this is true, because the cross exposes the depth of human sin like nothing else. At Calvary we see what sin truly is, as mankind rejects and crucifies the Son of God. Acts 2:23. Yet Scripture also teaches that sin is revealed through the law and through God’s holy character long before the cross. Paul plainly tells us that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:20. The cross does not introduce sin; it reveals its full seriousness and consequence. What the law makes known, the cross makes unmistakably clear. When these distinctions are overlooked, the witness of Scripture becomes blurred, because both law and gospel together reveal the true condition of man. Galatians 3:22.
In the excerpts from Barth referenced in the article, some of the language sounds beautifully Christ-centered, yet it stretches the work of Christ beyond the boundaries Scripture itself maintains. The result is a theology that speaks warmly of a kind of universal “reconciliation” while dissolving the distinctions the gospel itself establishes. Scripture, however, speaks far more precisely about where life and reconciliation are found. “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” I John 5:11-12. This is where the gospel itself must define our language. And this is where the implications become much larger than a single point of interpretation. When reconciliation is spoken of as something belonging to humanity in general, it does not simply adjust one doctrine, it begins to loosen several of the central truths Scripture sets before us. The necessity of the new birth, the warnings of final judgment, the call to repentance and faith, the distinction between those in Adam and those in Christ, and the saving purpose of Christ’s death all begin to lose their meaning when reconciliation is treated as universal. These are not small matters. II John 9-10. The gospel presents a whole framework of truth about sin, judgment, redemption, and new life in Christ, and when one part is shifted, the rest cannot remain unaffected. Galatians 5:9.
And to the friend who sent the article, these things are said with genuine concern, not as an attempt to win a theological argument, but out of grief to see someone carried along by a persuasion that draws men away from the simplicity of the gospel. The Scriptures are all we have. This is no time to be laying foundations on sand. Ideas come and go, and theological systems rise and fall, but the testimony God has given does not change. You know the gospel, which is why it is difficult to understand how you could move toward a way of thinking that slowly leaves it all behind. We cannot choose what we like about God from the Scriptures and set aside the rest without beginning to fashion a god in our own image. The moment we begin reshaping the testimony of Scripture to fit our conclusions, we have already stepped away from its authority. And once Scripture no longer governs our conclusions, we are left navigating by our own reasoning. Colossians 2:8. Moving from one theological frame to another in search of what seems persuasive will never settle the soul. What we need instead is to return to the plain testimony of Christ in the Scriptures and remain there, because life is found in Him alone and nowhere else. Scripture knows nothing of salvation outside of Christ or life apart from Him. All who are saved are saved in Him alone. May the Lord be merciful and grant discernment in these vital matters. “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12. MPJ