1

Dr. Alan Myatt

Systematic Theology II
May 28, 2010

The Third Side to the Election Coin

I picked up a coin off of the sidewalk the other day and realized something

astonishing and simplistic: there are not just two sides to any coin, there is always a third

side, the edge or rim of the coin as well. This little astonishing enlightenment opened my

eyes to the theology of election. In my experience in evangelism, friendly conversations,

and even in seminary, I have always been taught or heard that in discussing the theology

of election there are only two approaches; Calvinism and Arminianism. These two

theologies have similarities but also look very different, just like two sides of any coin.

But like any coin there is always a third side, the rim or edge, that connects these two

sides together, I believe that this is also true for the three-sided coin of election. This

third side of the election coin, Barthianism, takes the best of Calvinism and Arminianism

and connects them together. The theology of election must first be understood in

Calvinism and Arminianism, in order to understand how Barthianism takes these two

sides of a coin and connects them, because it is this third approach to the theology of

election that best shows how the person of Christ is connected to election.

John Calvin developed his theology on predestination and election in order to help

him explain, “why some individuals respond to the gospel, and others do not.”1 The only

logical explanation for Calvin, was that God must have predetermined and chosen

individuals to respond and not have chosen others. This would develop into the Calvinist

concept of double-predestination, which Calvin defined as, “the eternal decree of God, by

which he determined what he wished to make of every person. For he does not create
1
Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 382.
 2

everyone in the same condition, but ordains (elects) eternal life for some and eternal

damnation for others.”2 Calvin goes on to affirm that in scripture God is said to have

elect or have, “ordained from eternity those whom he wills to embrace in love, and those

upon whom he wills to vent his wrath.”3 Recognizing the implications and how this

decree of God sounds, Calvin himself writes that it is a “horrible decree.”4

The followers of Calvin established a five-point doctrine on election, at the Synod

of Dort in 1618. The five points of Calvinism are more commonly known by the

acronym TULIP. It stands for the: Total depravity of sinful human nature, in that sinful

man is unable to do anything to obtain salvation; Unconditional election, God’s sovereign

choice of only certain individuals to salvation, the elect, that is not based on a person’s

merit or foreseen faith; Limited atonement, in that Christ’s redeeming work is only for

the elect, therefore the positive effects of the cross only apply to the elect; Irresistible

grace, by which the elect are infallibly called and redeemed; and Perseverance of saints,

in that those who are truly elect by God cannot in any way defect from that calling.5

All five of theses points are founded upon the Calvinist view of the sovereignty of

God. Since Calvin stressed the absolute sovereignty of God, he attributed all of election

to God’s efficient will.6 Therefore Calvin noted characteristics of the election in Christ:

1) Election is according to God’s sovereign will and good pleasure. It involves

God’s unconditional choice of a man or woman, not the latter’s choice of God.
2) Election is founded on freely given mercy; God is under no obligation to save a
single rebellious sinner. 3) Election is not based on foreseen faith or holiness…
“but the adoption by which he had always distinguished his children from the

2
John Calvin, Institutes. 3.24. As found on page 381 of McGrath.
3
Calvin, Institutes. 3.24.17
4
can also be translated awesome. But Calvin in his french translation writes, “I confess that this
decree must frighten us.” McGrath, Christian Theology, 382.
5
McGrath, 383.
6
Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 108.
 3

reprobate.”7

The five points of Calvinism are therefore connected based on God’s sovereignty to

unconditionally elect a limited amount of totally depraved people to election and

salvation from his wrath. Bruce A. Ware puts it better when he summarizes:

God’s gracious choice, made in eternity past, of those whom he would save by
faith through the atoning death of his Son, a choice based not upon anything that
those so chosen would do, or any choice that they would make, or on how good or
bad they might be, or on anything else specifically true about them in contrast to
others, but rather based only upon God’s own good pleasure and will…
unconditional election specifically denies (the Arminian view) that God elects
persons based upon his advanced knowledge, in eternity past, of their future
decision of whether to receive Christ or not when presented with the gospel.8

The sovereignty of God is the basis for the Calvinist theology of election, therefore all of

salvation is of God; the whole of “salvation is from the Lord.”9

Though this doctrine of election was quickly accepted, it did not sit well with all.

Jacob Arminius could not stand for the Calvinist doctrine of election. For he viewed this

as a ‘horrible decree’ that was unworthy of God, for, “ How could God be fair, he

reasoned, if he condemns persons who have no opportunity to alter their situation because

not sovereignly elected.”10 Against reform thinking, Jacob Arminius developed a

theology of conditional salvation and general atonement. Arminius believed that Christ

had died for all, that his atonement was efficient for all and not merely for the elect.11

Instead of teaching the Calvinist doctrine of election, Jacob Arminius in his

writing Declaration of Sentiment proposes his four decrees of election. First, God

unconditionally elects, not certain individuals, but Jesus Christ to be the Savior of
7
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 345. Cf. Calvin, Institutes,
III.22. Italics Mine
8
Bruce A.Ware, Perspectives on Election: Five Views, 5. Italics Mine
9
John 2:9
10
Demarest, 101.
11
McGrath, 383.
 4

humankind, “what is unconditionally predestined is Christ or the way of salvation.”12

Second, God further decrees that a group of people who have faith and accept his grace

will be saved, “He decreed to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and, in

Christ… to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as persevere to the end.”13

Unfortunately, people are totally depraved and therefore cannot believe. But this is

where the third decree states that God administers prevenient grace to all people.

Prevenient grace diminishes original sin, which enables sinners to respond to the gospel,

“God confers on all people grace (prevenient) sufficient for salvation; it’s up to the

individual to believe or not believe, to be saved or not be saved.”14 Finally, God therefore

in his foreknowledge decrees to elect and save individuals he foreknows will believe and

punish those who will reject Him, “This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of

God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through

preventing (prevenient) grace, believe, and through his subsequent grace would

preserve.”15 Based on these four decrees Arminian theology believes that God’s grace is

available to all, but God elects conditionally only those he foreknew would believe.

The Arminian view of predestination and election is therefore based on the

theological presupposition of two wills, God’s and man’s. God’s will is that He desires

for all men to be saved and come to know the truth (1 Tim 2:4), but this does not happen

and though it is contrary to God’s purpose, some will never repent and therefore will

perish (2 Pet. 3:9).16 Though God has a desire and wills all people to be saved, He also

made the sovereign decision to create man with free will to make decisions. In
12
Demarest, 101. Italics Mine
13
Jacob Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, 1:247. Italics Mine
14
Demarest, 102. Italics Mine
15
Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, 1:248. Italics Mine
16
Jack W. Cottrell, Perspectives on Election, 98-99.
 5

Arminianism there is the agreement that humans have the freedom of making decisions,

including accepting or rejecting Christ.17 Arminians believe that their strength comes

from the synergy of God’s will for all to be saved, and God’s decision to allow humans

free will to make decisions, including their salvation:

The way of God’s salvation as conditional is consistent with our nature as

freewill beings. Human free will and the conditionality of salvation go
together. The way of God’s salvation as conditional is also consistent with the
sovereignty of God since God himself is the one who determined that it shall be
this way and since God himself is the one who determined what the conditions
are.18

In his theology Arminius decided to uphold God’s desire and human free will in synergy

with one another as the foundation of his theology. Arminians believe that election is

synergistic, “both divine grace and the human will are causes of salvation.”19

In this synergy, salvation is still based on God’s election. But in Arminianism

God’s election is based on God’s foreknowledge of human choice. Arminians believe

that God “Before he created the world, he knew-foreknew- every human decision,

including those related to each individual’s salvation. As a result of this foreknowledge,

‘from all eternity; he predestined some to heaven and the rest to hell.”20 Arminius wrote

that God’s will to save certain individuals is founded “in the foreknowledge of God, by

which he knew from all eternity” who would accept his grace.21

It is because of the synergy of God’s will and human choice, that the theological

concepts of the predestination of Christ as Saviour of humanity, who makes unlimited

atonement available to humans, but conditionally elects only some to salvation, based on

17
F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth,322.
18
Cottrell, 117. Italics Mine.
19
Demarest, 101.
20
Ibid, 85.
21
Jacob Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments, I.5
 6

God’s foreknowledge of those who will accept or reject him, are connected. In

Arminianism God predetermines:

To give salvation to all believers, but he does not predestine certain

unbelievers to become believers and the rest to remain in their unbelief. Those
who accept Christ through faith do so of their own free choice. Their choice of
Jesus Christ is not predestined. That choice, however, is foreknown; and as a
result in choosing ones become the chosen ones, who are then predestined to
receive the full blessing of salvation.22

The ones who choose God, therefore become the elect. Hence atonement is unlimited

and sufficient as it is available to all through prevenient grace. But that election is

conditional and therefore efficient only for those whom God elects in his foreknowledge

of those who will believe in faith.

There are many scriptures that are debated between Calvinists and Arminians on

election, but Ephesians 1: 3-14, is of most interest. For the Calvinist the main purpose of

this scripture is that all of salvation is from the Lord, and it establishes the fact that

election of those whom God will save is God’s choice. God’s election of us, ‘before the

foundation of the world’ is, an election that is unconditional.23 But Arminians on the

other hand view this text, as evidence that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of

human choice, election is “based on his foreknowledge. He knows who will believe in

Christ and has chosen them in Christ (Eph 1:4).”24

Not satisfied with either the Calvinist or Arminian approach to the doctrine of

election, Karl Barth believed that a true doctrine on election must be Christologically

oriented. For Karl Barth the clearest understanding of the doctrine of election lied in

Jesus Christ. Barth’s thoughts on election and predestination found in Church

22
Cottrell, Perspectives on Election, 81. Italics Mine.
23
Cottrell, 13-14.
24
Forlines, Quest for Truth, 374.
 7

Dogmatics, is based upon, “two central affirmations: Jesus Christ is the electing God and

Jesus Christ is the elected human being.”25 Like Calvinism, Barth believed in a double-

predestination. But unlike Calvinism, Karl Barth held that this double predestination is

found in the election of Jesus Christ. Also Barth agreed with the Arminian idea that

Christ is the one who is elected, but Barth adds to this that Christ is also the elector. Barth

writes, “In its simplest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of predestination

consists of the assertion that the divine predestination is the election of Jesus Christ. But

the concept of election has a double reference- to the elector and the elected.”26

To understand Barth’s theology, the person of Christ must be first understood.

Barth and his follower believed that their theology followed in the footsteps of the early

church fathers. Barthians argue that their Christology is not new, but follows more or

less inline with the teachings of Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril, the early church councils,

and the doctrine of Chalcedon.27 As written in the Chalcedonian statement, Christ is:

Truly God and also truly man… of one being with the Father as touching
his Godhead and also of one being with us touching his humanity, being
like unto us in all things except sin, begotten of the Father before all times
according to his Godhead, and also in the last days born for our sake and
for our salvation, of the virgin Mary the bearer of God according to his
humanity, one and the same Christ, the Son, Lord only begotten, of two
natures, without confusion, conversion, division, and without separation.28

The foundation for Barthianism is that Christ is both, ‘fully God and fully man’.

Following the Chalcedon document and scriptures, Barthians believe that in

Christ both human and divine natures are found in hypostatic union in his person. As the

scriptures show, Christ is fully God, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
25
McGrath 384
26
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, volume 2, part 2.
27
See Incarnation, Torrance, especially Ch. 6, ‘Hypostatic Union’, 196-234.
28
The Chalcedon Doctrine, as found on page 200 of Incarnation. Italics Mine
 8

with God, and the Word was God”, “He is the image of the invisible God”, “For in

Christ all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form”, and as Christ said himself, “Anyone

who has seen me has seen the Father.”29

Not only in his person did God fully dwell, but also all of humanity. Scripture

observes that Christ humbled himself and took on our humanity: “but made himself

nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness”, “who as to

his human nature was a descendant of David”, “The Word became Flesh and made his

dwelling among us.”30

In his person Christ not only assumed our fallen humanity, but he assumes it in

such a way that humanity finds its creation and existence in Jesus, “Through him all

things were made, without him nothing was made that has been made” and “by him all

things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were

created by him and for him… and in him all things hold together”.31

Christ in his person therefore represents both God and man. Not only are both

present in Jesus Christ they are also united, “The Lord Jesus Christ was and is God and

Man in one Person, for in him divine and human nature were and are hypostatically and

forever united.”32 And in following the Chalcedon statement as well, Barthians believe

that these two natures of Christ cannot be separated.

Jesus Christ is both ‘fully God and fully man’ and these two natures in his person

cannot be separated. Since the person of Christ can not be divided, than neither can the

29
John 1:1, Col. 1:15, Col 2:9, John 14:9.
30
Phil. 2:7, Rom. 1:2, John 1:1
31
John 1:3 Col 1: 16-17.
32
Thomas F. Torrance, “The Atonement, The Singularity of Christ, and the Finality of the Cross:
The Atonement and the Moral Order.” Chapter 8, in De S. Cameron, Universalism and the
Doctrine of Hell. 235.
 9

work of Christ be distinguished from the person of Christ. As the author of Hebrews

writes:

In brining many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and
through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation
perfect through suffering. Both the one who makes men holy and those
who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call
them brothers… Since children have flesh and blood, he too shared in
their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the
power of death...”33

Karl Barth believed that the person of Christ could not be separate from his work,

since Christ represents both God and man in his incarnation and his atonement. Since the

person of Christ cannot be separated the range of representation in both the incarnation

and the atonement are the same. It is because Christ is ‘fully God and fully man’ that he

is able to represent and redeem all, “ For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in

him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or in

heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross… But now he has

reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his

sight…”34 Thomas Torrance, a pupil of Barth, writes:

Atonement and incarnation, however, cannot be separated from one

another and therefore the range of representation is the same in both. In
both, all people are involved. In the incarnation Christ, the eternal Son,
took upon the nature of man and all who belong to human nature are
involved and are represented, all men and women, without exception, so
that for all and each, Jesus Christ stood in as a substitute and advocate in
his life and death.35

God’s predestination and election therefore takes places in the complete deity and

humanity of Christ. Being both God and man, Christ is therefore the elector and the

elected. It is because of this election that Barthians view what Paul writes in Ephesians,
33
Hebrews 2:10-11, 14. Italics Mine
34
Col 1:19-20, 22. Italics Mine
35
Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 182.
 10

as speaking not just to the limited elect, or just those God foreknew would believe, but

instead see this scripture as speaking to all who are elected in Jesus Christ, which is all

who belong to humanity:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless
in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus
Christ… In him we have redemption though his blood, the forgiveness of sins…
And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure,
which he purposed in Christ… to bring all things in heaven and on earth together
under one head, even Christ.36

The election, which can only take place in Christ, as he is both the elector and the

elected, still has a double-predestination in Barthianism. For Barth this double-

predestination of election and rejection happens within Christ, “But for Barth double-

predestination does not refer to a dual determination of humans but to Jesus Christ, who

is the one ‘elect and reprobate man.’37 For Barthians election means:

Nothing more and nothing less than the complete action of God’s eternal
love… It is the eternal decision of God who will not be without us
entering time as grace, choosing us and appropriating us for Himself, and
who will not let us go. Election is the love of God enacted and inserted
into history in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so that in
the strictest sense Jesus Christ is the election of God. His is the one and
indivisible act of divine love. There is therefore no decree of
predestination which precedes this act of grace or goes behind the back of
Jesus Christ, for that would be to split the act of God into two, and to
divide Christ from God.38

Christ is therefore the elected and rejected man, in double-predestination. For it is

God himself who bears ours sins, “God becomes man and taking man’s place, standing

with humanity under divine judgment, God the judge becoming himself the man judged

and bearing his own judgment upon the sin of humanity.”39

36
Ephesians 1:4-10. Italics Mine
37
Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology. 585.
38
Thomas F. Torrance, “Universalism or Election?”, 314-315. Italics Mine.
39
Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 185.
 11

God elects to take humanity’s sin and judgment upon himself, for he desires for

the whole world to be redeem, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours

but also for the sins of the whole world” and “This is good and it’s acceptable in the sight

of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the

truth. For, there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave

himself a ransom for all.”40 Christ took our punishment on himself, for it is God’s nature

to love the whole world, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,

that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”41

Unlike Calvinism, Barthians believe that to limit the atonement is to limit the

range of the nature, being, and love of God. The Calvinist might say that God loves all

humanity, “but that for them is another thing than to say that Christ died for all

humanity... Christ’s love for all mankind is not translated into action.”42 However, the

atonement that takes place in the election of Christ involves and applies to everyone

without exception,

for to limit the range of his activity as God and man in his incarnate life, death,
and resurrection, would be to introduce a limitation into his eternal being as love,
and a schism or contradiction into his incarnate person as God and Man. To hold
that some people are not included in his incarnate and redeeming activity is to cut
at the very root of his reality as the Creator incarnate in space and time, as he ‘in
whom all things in the universe, visible and invisible, were created, hold together
and are reconciled by the blood of Christ.’43

The Calvinist statement of limited atonement, that it ‘was sufficient for all,

efficient for some’, implies a limited assumption of God’s incarnation of our humanity.

40
Quoted are 1 John 2:2 and 1 Tim. 2:5, also see Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:48. Italics Mine.
41
John 3:16. Italics Mine.
42
Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 187.
43
Thomas F. Torrance, “The Atonement, The Singularity of Christ, and the Finality of the Cross:
The Atonement and the Moral Order.” Chapter 8, in De S. Cameron, Universalism and the
Doctrine of Hell. 245. Ref. Col 1:15-20.
 12

If it is only a partial assumption of humanity, then God in Christ only takes on the burden

of sin and judgment for the elect. But, “if it is truly God himself the Judge becoming the

man judge, then we cannot allow any divorce between the action of Christ on the cross

and the action of God. How is it at all possible to think of the divine judgment in the

cross as only a partial judgment upon sin, or a judgment only upon some sinners, for that

is finally what it amounts to if only some sinners are died for and only some are

efficiently implicated in atonement? The concept of a limited atonement thus rests upon

a limitation of the very being of God as love…”44 The doctrine of limited atonement then

allows for a judgment on a part of humanity outside of Christ; for the reprobate there’s is

still a wrathful God who will judge the rest of humanity apart from the cross.45 But that

goes against the biblical proclamation that God has committed all judgment to Christ,

“Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son.”46

Barthians also do not agree with the Arminian stance on conditional grace. In

Arminian theology all that God provided was the possibility of salvation on the cross,

therefore, “each person has to translate that possibility into actuality in their own case.”47

If this is the case election and salvation are conditional on the individual choosing their

own atonement, “and to teach that ultimately every one is their own Saviour, in so far as

they have to co-operate with Christ for their salvation.”48

Barthian theology takes the best of Calvinism and Arminian theology.

Barthianism takes the idea of unconditional election found in Calvinism and put it

together with the Arminian idea of unlimited atonement. Like Calvinists, Barthians
44
Ibid, 245-246
45
Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 185.
46
John 5:22
47
Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 187.
48
Ibid 187.
 13

believe that Christ in his atoning work has actually accomplished the atonement for

everyone for whom he elected and died for; it is a finish work. But like Arminians,

Barthians also believe that Jesus loves everyone he created and that died for all humanity

on the cross. Barthians, then add to this connection, that all of humanity is elected in

Jesus Christ, therefore the atonement is not only sufficient but efficient for all!

But isn’t this just universalism? To this question, which Barth often received,

Barthians yell, ‘NO!’ Barthians claim that both “universalism and limited atonement are

twin heresies.”49 Universalism is a heresy because there is not a shred of biblical

evidence that can support the impossibility of damnation.50 Universalism doesn’t hold

water in two aspects; it doesn’t take seriously the doctrine of election, and the reality of

hell.

The concept of subjective choice in election is neglected in universalism, for “the

biblical doctrine of election is the very doctrine which expresses the universal action of

God’s grace in such a way that, far from dissolving the personal elements of choice and

decision, it establishes them.”51 Though the atonement is a final, complete, universal, and

an objective act of God in the election of Christ, Barthians still allow for a subjective

choice. There is a personal choice, but it is a subjective decision of a decision already

made in and by the elected man, Jesus Christ. For in Christ:

God has taken the great positive decision for man… God does not
withhold himself from anyone, but he gives himself to all whether they
will or not- even if they will not have him, he gives himself to them…
Christ died for all humanity, and no human being can undo or escape the

49
Thomas F. Torrance, “The Atonement, The Singularity of Christ, and the Finality of the Cross:
The Atonement and the Moral Order.” Chapter 8, in De S. Cameron, Universalism and the
Doctrine of Hell, 248. Universalism is: ‘the belief in universal salvation, that in the end all will
be saved’: as defined in Atonement p.462.
50
Thomas F. Torrance, “Universalism or Election?”, 313.
51
Thomas F. Torrance, “Universalism or Election?”, 314.
 14

fact that every one has been died for, and no one can evade the fact that
they are loved by God. Therefore when they do the inconceivable thing in
the face of divine love, namely refuse it, that unavoidable self-giving of
God is their very judgment.52

Each person may choose to refuse the choice that Christ has made for all of

humanity in his election. As 2 Peter 2:1 mentions, that those who reject God’s grace will

go as far as, “even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them- bringing swift

destruction on themselves.” But as Psalm 139:8 reminds us that even if we do the

unconceivable, God’s love will still embrace us, “If I make my bed in hell, you are there.”

Or as Torrance writes:

To choose our own way in spite of God’s absolute choice of us… To

choose our own way and yet in that choice still be chosen by God would
be hell… But God’s love is eternal and God’s love has been once and for
all enacted as an event that divides between love and what is anti-love.
Love will not let go. Even when a man has made his bed in hell, God’s
hand of love will continue to grasp him there. To choose finally and for
ever- unfathomable mystery of iniquity- to say ‘No’ to Jesus is to be held
in a hell of one’s own choosing and making.53

Though even in Barthianism hell is still a reality, it is a lesser a reality. It is a

reality that God does not choose for us, but one that we may choose for ourselves.

God’s choice for us though, is one of love, grace, salvation, and it has been already

accomplished in the person and election of Jesus Christ, “The great fact of the Gospel

then is this: that God has actually chosen us in Jesus Christ… and because that is once

and for all no one can ever elude the election of His love.”54 Now that is good news,

that is Gospel.

Barthian theology is the third side of the election coin, which brings together

concepts from both the Calvinist and Arminian sides. In the Barthian view of election
52
Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 188-189. Italics mine.
53
Thomas F. Torrance, “Universalism or Election?” 316-317. Italics Mine.
54
Ibid, 315.
 15

the best of Calvinism and Arminianism comes out and are connected. The great news

found in both of these theologies are able to be united together in Barthianism, without

being universalism. This is only possible because of Karl Barth’s belief that a true

theology of election must take seriously the person of Christ. In an evangelical

setting, this makes the proclamation of election fun and exciting. There is nothing

more thrilling than looking into a crowd of people who don’t know who Jesus is and

say, “The great fact of the Gospel then is this: that God has actually chosen us in Jesus

Christ… and because that is once and for all, no one can ever elude the election of His

love.”55

The challenge is going to be putting Barthianism in an evangelical setting at all. There is

a lot of metaphysical and epistemological baggage in Barth’s theology, much descending

from Kantian critical philosophy and the irrationalism of Kierkegaard that is very

difficult to get rid of. Barth’s view of election is possible due to his view of paradox in

his dialectical approach to theology. One of the results is that the only way to avoid

universalism is to assert that many of the elect finish up damned to hell for eternity. How

one reconciles that to Scripture is an interesting question. It is difficult to see how this

view avoids falling back into the Arminian side in the end, since the subjective element

introduces an essentially Arminian notion of free-will in the end. Anyway, this is a

valiant effort, but I don’t think it succeeds in the end.

Your paper could be improved by interacting with at least one or two serious critiques of

Barth’s view. Grade = 86

55
Ibid, 315.
 16

Work Cited

1. Arminius, Jacob. A Declaration of Sentiments.

2. Arminius, Jacob. The Works of James Arminius. 3vols, London: 1825.

3. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1960.

4. Calvin, John. Commentay on Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal
Library.

5. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Library of Christian Classics, 2 vols.,
ed. John T. McNeil, trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1960.

6. Cottrell, Jack W. Perspectives on Election: Five Views. ed. Chad Owen Brand,
Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman , 2006

7. Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of God. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 1997.

8. Forlines, F. Leroy. The Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Questions.
Nashville, TN: Randall, 2001.

9. Mcgrath, Alister E.. Christian Theology: An Introduction (4th Edition). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

10. Olson, Roger E.. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition &
Reform. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.

11. Torrance, Thomas F. Atonement. ed. Robert T. Walker, Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2009.

12. Torrance, Thomas F., “The Atonement, The Singularity of Christ, and the Finality of
the Cross: The Atonement and the Moral Order.” Chapter 8, in De S. Cameron,
Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell.
 17

13. Torrance, Thomas F . Incarnation. ed. Robert T. Walker, Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2008.

14. Torrance, Thomas F., “Universalism or Election?” Scottish Journal of Theology Vol.
2, No. 3, Sept., 1949.

15. Ware, Bruce A.. Perspectives on Election: Five Views. ed. Chad Owen Brand,
Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman , 2006.