Home » Posts tagged 'Karl Barth'

Tag Archives: Karl Barth

The Bible is a serious and authoritative book, very easy to see this with a normal read. God doesn’t play games through it. In it, He weighs men’s actions and He judges according to the truth those acts that they commit (cf 1 Sam 2:3, Rom 2:1-2). He cautions men careening toward eternal punishment against their indifference and neglect.

Jesus especially out of His compassion alerts men to their futures in Hell. He strongly warns them of pain well past a fractured femur or ten on the numerical emergency room scale, depicting its concomitant wailing and teeth grinding. He prods and pleads like it could make a difference. Many, many similar aspects of this, among other things, contradict the fourth point of Calvinism.

4. IRRESISTIBLE GRACE

A Real, Free Offer?

What degree of Jesus’ pushing the pedal to the metal with HIs preaching reaches irresistible grace? In truth man would find himself under no compulsion to believe. He just awaits that point of ignition of the grace of God, that Calvinists call irresistible grace. How does a warning of a potential point of no return square with the vast majority never even having the possibility of return? It’s a free offer, but only in the nature of an opportunity Lucy would give Charlie Brown to kick a football. The offer is a shell game, yet with nothing under any of the shells. Scripture does not read like that at all.

If the offer of the gospel is really free and real, then it allows for true rejection or reception. I refer to two aspects: an offer and free. It is not an offer if the person can’t get it, take it, or receive it. God does offer salvation. By free, men are not coerced to take it.

By nature everyone will receive that enacted by irresistible grace. It is irresistible. Calvinism says that someone cannot and will not receive the gospel unaccompanied by irresistible grace. This explains why someone will not receive it. Who benefits from irresistible grace with Calvinism? Only those God predetermined their election.

Parallels with Barth and Universalism

Universalism arises from the same doctrine of irresistible grace. Twentieth century Dutch theologian Gerrit Berkouwer in his book, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, writes concerning Barth’s universalism:

[U]nbelief has been put away—the unbelief of the old man—by the decisive grace of God, which is so decisive that the inevitability of faith lies involved in it.

Carl Henry writes about Barth and this in his book, God, Revelation, and Authority:

The defect in Barth’s theology follows from his notions that all humanity is elected in Jesus as the God-man, and that sin and unbelief are ontologically impossible. The result, at least implicitly, is universal redemption . . . . In his majestic vision of the totality of God’s triumph, and in deference to the irresistible power of grace, Barth ignores the conditional elements of biblical revelation. He turns the sure triumph of divine grace into an implicit universalism of redemption that obscures the context of faith and obscures the indispensability of personal decision in this life for the inheritance of salvation.

When I read this, it sounded just like Calvinism, except that God elected everyone in this scenario rather than a predetermined small minority to whom He would dispense His irresistible grace. Of course, Karl Barth was wrong. Men must believe in real time in Jesus Christ and at that moment salvation occurs. This doesn’t clash with foreknowledge, but it does with unconditional election.

The very existence of much of the New Testament cries that resistible grace exists, what I’m going to explain that . . . .

4. GOD PROVIDES THE SUFFICIENT GRACE FOR ANYONE AND EVERYONE TO BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST FOR SALVATION

Scripture and Sufficient Grace

God inspired Gospels for the immediate delivery to various locations and future dispersion to the whole world for a saving revelation of Jesus Christ. They present convincing saving evidence of Jesus Christ, like John says in John 20:31:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

A Calvinist rendition of John 20:31 should sound like the following:

But these are written, that accompanied by irresistible grace ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ. . . .

Scripture has the sufficient grace in it for someone to believe, who hears it. When Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God, it means it. If a person is born again by the incorruptible seed, which is the Word of God (1 Pet 1:23), then the Word of God is a sufficient source of grace to believe in a salvific way.

Appeared to All Men

The Apostle Paul writes under God’s inspiration in Titus 2:11:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

That statement coupled with what Paul wrote in Romans 1:19-20 is very enlightening on this subject.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

How does God’s grace that brings salvation appear to all men? It appears to all men through His general revelation, so much so that it renders every human being “without excuse.” Everybody gets the necessary revelation to provide the sufficient grace for salvation. Everyone is without excuse because everyone gets it. If only some got the grace sufficient to save, the ones who didn’t receive would seem to have an excuse. The revelation of God provides sufficient grace to make every human being in history culpable for receiving it.

Variations on Reception

When Jesus explains the salvation of some versus not of others, in Matthew 13 He points to the varied condition of their hearts: hard, stony, or thorny. No one would need Jesus’ delineation of varied soils or heart conditions if grace was irresistible. Neither hard, stony, or thorny could resist irresistible grace. Yet, Stephen preaches in his gospel sermon in Acts 7:51:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

“Always resist” seems to fully contradict irresistible grace, and it describes the hard ground of Jesus’ parable in Matthew 13. Carl Henry writes:

God’s revealed truth of saving grace may be repressed by impenitent rebellion or received with alacrity by repentant trust. His gracious invitation to life fit for eternity must be personally accepted; without personal appropriation God’s promise of rescue in and of itself saves no one.

In Luke 14 Jesus declares a different response between two groups. It isn’t those who God predetermined irresistible grace and those He did not. No, Jesus saw the poor and the lame respond well and the self-righteous and the self-sufficient refuse it. Jesus spoke the truth.

More to Come

How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology (part two)

March 26, 2024 / 2 Comments on How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology (part two)

Part One

Man’s Lust As An Agent of Change

Scripture itself chronicles an entire world history long Satanic attack on scripture. It is one of the few major components of apostasy, even as seen in 2 Peter 1. Man wants to do what he wants to do, what the Bible calls “lust.” He follows his own lust. The authority of scripture gets in the way of man’s own desires, so he follows the ideology of Satan by attacking scripture. Without the Bible, authority returns to himself and he goes his own way without compunction.

People who want to do what they want to do are the audience for evangelical outreach. These people look askance at true Christianity, wanting something closer to what pleases them not God. Mere biblical stuff does not attract or allure them.

Evangelical churches and organizations have choices about growth and then budgets. Evangelicals like the same comforts as their potential audience, who want to please themselves. They “get” that audience, because they operate in a similar trajectory. Christianity becomes another way of getting things, except with a lot of the negatives removed. It’s not true, but a desirable narrative, what people would want their Christianity to be. Much in scripture gets in the way of the false narrative.

The Bible becomes the casualty in the clash of desires, please one’s self or pleasing God. These desires compete and something’s got to go. Evangelicals will not keep their attendees without something going. One can see the biblical and historical doctrine of scripture change.

Naturalism in Academia As An Agent of Change

Naturalism also rose and took hold in academic institutions in the United States in the 19th century. This included evangelical ones and then churches out of these. Supernaturalism became unacceptable. The doctrine of the Bible reads from scripture as supernatural. God is in charge of His Words and He wants, even requires, people to follow suit. If professing academics try to take that supernatural point of view, they won’t fit in academia. They won’t be the smart ones, might not find their supernaturalism acceptable for publication.

So how did and does biblical, historical, or classical bibliology change? How did even evangelicals move the goalposts? It’s not always through all evangelicals taking the new positions, but it’s also accommodation of the new positions.

This series will not cover every diversion from scriptural bibliology, but it will represent the point of the title, moving the goalposts for bibliology by evangelicalism.

Moving the Goalposts on Inspiration

Scripture teaches that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), so that is true. The historical, biblical position on inspiration is “verbal, plenary inspiration.” God inspired every Word and all the Words. The authority of scripture comes from that, even as seen in the rest of 2 Timothy 3:16: “and is profitable for doctrine,” etc. The authority of scripture proceeds from inspiration.

I provide three examples of moving the goalposts on inspiration, not necessarily in any order. Evangelicals see large numbers of deconversions or departures from the faith. These young people or students see apparent inconsistencies, incongruities, contradictions, or what look like errors. I remind you of the mixture of these discoveries with their lust. Why should these young people continue in this path without a perfect book?

The Christological Approach Pushed by Dan Wallace and Others

A text or book verbally, plenarily inspired by God must be perfect, every word and all of them. Since people “don’t see that,” they push the eject button. The presupposition for verbal, plenary scripture comes from scripture. Some might call that circular reasoning. Critics would say that no one should operate on circular reasoning. Daniel Wallace, longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, offers instead what he calls an incarnational or Christological approach.

Describing Christology over Bibliology

This incarnational approach defers to errors in scripture, but says that the Word isn’t a textbook. In fact, the Word is Christ. Christ is perfect, so His Word is perfect. Sure you find contradictions and errors there in the Book. Wallace can’t vouch for a literal inerrancy. There is a mystical aspect to the faith, that starts with Jesus and not the Book.

The high view of scripture according to Wallace comes because of the perfection of Christ. He is the Word. Then those who start with Jesus go to scripture with the same view He had. As you read this, I can understand your seeing or thinking there are some gaps in Wallace’s position.

You might think, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). It seems faith proceeds from the Word of God, not an experience external to the Word of God with Christ. What is this mystical experience? And if Christ is Who He is, I would expect Who He says He is, then isn’t His Word actually perfect? That is what He says. If He says it, and then we look into scripture and find it isn’t true, what does that say for the testimony of Christ?

John Wenham

Wallace seems somewhat honest about his expectations of the Bible. They are diminished by scholarship. He went back to the drawing board on inspiration, authority, and inerrancy, unlike when Bart Ehrman came to that same juncture. He found a book written by John Wenham in 1972, called, The Bible and Christ. There Wallace found this innovative position, and it’s the one he pushes on his students. Christ is a Perfect Christ no matter if the actual Words of scripture are perfect, and He would contend that we know that by a supernatural, extra-scriptural experience with Christ.

John Frame found the same shortcomings of Wenham’s book in a review he wrote in 2012. This is not an endorsement of Frame, but I would agree with Frame’s assessment of the approach that Wallace embraces on the Christology over Bibliology doctrine. Wallace moves the goalposts on bibliology. Perhaps many evangelicals would reject Wallace’s position, but they wouldn’t call it neo-orthodox. They would accommodate him. Someone included the following in a definition of neo-orthodoxy, which I believe is true about it:

Neo-orthodoxy teaches that the Scripture is a communicator or medium revealing God rather than being revelation by itself. The Word of God is Jesus Himself rather than Scripture serving as God’s Word. The emphasis is on an encounter with God rather than a focus on the inspired words of Scripture.

This kind of thinking, now spoken by evangelical Daniel Wallace, liberals embraced in the writings of Emil Brunner and Karl Barth. This is the end for evangelicalism, when its leaders sway the adherents into this direction and these types of positions.

More to Come

WHAT IS TRUTH

Tag Archives: Karl Barth

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

A New Alternative List to the Points of Calvinism (Part Four)