The key to this theological tension may be found in Ephesians 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are
potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth).
hi Abiding.
re Karl Barth's thesis.
okay...i know Barth's position, and no one can disagree that God did elect Christ.
Barth's idea was that 'God had
never elected any individuals, but His election of Christ allowed a way for men and women to join the elect by clinging to the elected one--that is, by being "in Christ.'
but, God had to have elected some individuals - we know He did.
Christ's genealogy for example. was that left to people who God foresaw would choose/obey?
and the NT says The Lord chose, set Paul apart from his mother's womb....even if you have this being set aside as an Hebrew who would be faithful concerning the Law...it still has Paul saying he was set apart beforehand.
then there's paul's conversion...he wasn't listening to the Gospel and made a decision, that much is clear.
so though i surely agree Christ is said by God to be "Mine Elect, My Chosen"....there
are other individuals.
the Twelve..they were fishing.
Jesus found them. it says clearly that He did.
Barth: "Jesus is God’s elect man and
all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth)."
but here Barth is co-opting the term
elect which specifically means a set apart chosen group.
if he means the purpose, or means of salvation -
'election', then he is saying without saying it that God failed in His efforts to elect all men.
isn't he...ultimately?
Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a
constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove
the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths (God as transcendent versus God as
immanent; security vs. perseverance; Jesus as equal with the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father;
Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility to a covenant partner; etc.).Bob Utley
i didn't see that happening here.
i just see reaction to some terms.
like Limited Atonement - when it just plainly is reality that not all will be saved, so the Atonement (salvation) is in that sense limited to the limited number who end up saved.
i don't see any of these as being, nor being represented as unrelated separate truths.
i just see separate threads on an internet forum.