Does The Son Elect? A Partial Response to Daniel Kirk

Daniel Kirk is reading through Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics and asking some interesting critical questions.  Regarding §33.2,”The Eternal Will of God in the Election of Jesus Christ,” he asks, “Question 1:  Is it faithful to Scripture to say that the Son, Jesus Christ, elects, such that in the God-man the one who elects and the one who is elected are one?”

The article makes several good points.  The NT writers tend to mean the Father when they use the word “God,” and “when election is assigned to a person, it is most often the Father (e.g., 1 Peter 1:1-2) rather than the Son.”  Ephesians, as he says, presents election as the action of the Father.  He says,

I don’t think that John 1:1, “the Word was God,” provides the kind of leverage Barth demands of it to assign to the son what is clearly assigned to the Father throughout scripture.

Dr. Kirk treats Barth’s doctrine of election as a re-reading of the New Testament documents through somewhat anachronistic Trinitarian lenses: 

It’s all well and good for us, in our more developed Trinitarian Theology, to think “Father, Son, and Spirit” when we think “God.” However, this is not what the NT writers were thinking. For them, when they say “God” they mean the one to whom we refer to as “Father.”

Certainly the use of these or any other anachronistic lenses, whatever they might reveal, would obscure the first century context of the texts and produce a lopsided exegesis.  Wrenching the texts from their own era does them no service.

But Barth does not, as it were, funnel 4^th century Trinitarian formulations through John 1 to deconstruct traditional doctrines of election and then construct his own.  He starts, instead, with the New Testament’s own pervasive view of Jesus as the full revelation of God, asking whether the traditional doctrines of election departed from this view as their starting point.  That is, if Jesus Christ is the revelation of who God is, then is he not also the revelation of the electing God?  If he is God incarnate, is he not also the incarnation of the electing God?

If it is not the biggest question in Barth’s theology, then there is at least none bigger than this:  Is there some other Word of God besides Jesus of Nazareth?  Barth’s consistent answer is:  No!  (emphasis his, repeatedly through his works)

The very best of the older theologians have taught us that in the word which calls and justifies and sanctifies us, the word which forms the content of the biblical witness, we must recognize in all seriousness the Word of God.  Beside and above and behind this Word there is no other.  … Again, they have warned us most seriously that in respect of the knowledge of god and man we must not turn aside in the slightest degree from the knowledge of Jesus Christ, either to the right hand or to the left.  (C.D. II/2, 150)

And yet, when it came to the doctrine of election,

Suddenly there seemed to be some other eternity apart fro the eternity of the eternal life whose revelation and promise and gift in the promised and temporally incarnate Word they elsewhere attest loudly and impressively enough.  And in this eternity there seemed to be some other mystery apart from the mystery whose proclamation and disclosure they can confirm elsewhere with clear texts from the New Testament.  … In the sphere of predestination there arose all at once a different order, even though it had appeared elsewhere that according to the biblical testimony upon which the Church is founded there can be no question of the recognition of any such order. (C.D. II/2, 151)

It is not by beginning with a Trinitarian structure in which Jesus is the Son, but with the claim that Jesus is the full and only Word, i.e., Revelation, of God that Barth argues for the view of Jesus Christ as electing God as well as elect man.

Barth is not imposing 4^th century Christology on the NT but using the Christology of the NT itself.  In addition to John 1:1 f., Barth could well have cited John 1:18, John 14:6 (interpreted not only as a soteriological claim, but also an epistemic one), Col. 1:15-19, Heb. 1:3, and Mt. 11:27.

Still, given that the doctrine of Revelation, and not per se the doctrine of the Trinity, is Barth’s starting point, we are left with a multitude of perplexing questions, not least of which is:  Even if we grant that Jesus is the electing God, what are the relations within the Trinity in the action of election?  Dr. Kirk continues to give insightful discussion regarding such matters.

Comparing Barth to Packer

I read books by J. I. Packer long before I read Barth, and his work was an important component of learning to think through theological issues, including doctrine of Scripture.

Comments on C.D., I/1, §2

§2.1

The first half of the section seems to consist largely in Barth’s reaction against some of his contemporaries, especially Brunner,

A condensation of C.D., I/1, §2

§02 The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics

1. The Necessity of Dogmatic Prolegomena

Prolegomena are the discussions and expositions of how knowledge is attained in a science. Here we ask on what ground dogmatic prolegomena are necessary. 

Can Non-believers Do Theology?

Let me turn that question around: Can non-believers not do theology? If Jesus is “before all things and by him all things consist” (Col. 1:17), then how can any act or statement avoid having its existence in relation, one way or another, to Jesus Christ? If “sin” as such is not just transgression of a moral code, but the acts and attitudes of rebellion against God, then how can they not also be theological statements about the nature of the world and one’s independence from and opposition to whatever “gods” might be out there?

Blogging Barth

Several people are blogging through Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics I/1 in six months! Daniel Kirk instigated this project and has the list of bloggers on his web site, Storied Theology.

Summary of content:

§01 The Task of Dogmatics

1. The Church, Theology, Science

Dogmatics is theology as a science, i.e., as the Church’s self-examination of its speech about Jesus Christ. Like other sciences, it has a definite object of knowledge, it treads a definite path of knowledge, and it must give an account of this path to itself and to others. Although the label “science” is not necessary or especially important, we claim it because we thus 1) bring theology into line with other human concerns for truth, 2) protest the usual pagan concept of science, and 3) reckon the other sciences as part of the Church in spite of their protests.

2. Dogmatics as an Enquiry

We presuppose that dogmatics as enquiry is both possible and necessary. I.e., we can know the true content of Christian talk about God because Jesus Christ is the revealing and reconciling address of God to us. And that content must be known humanly, i.e., in creaturely form which is never clear and unambiguous. Thus dogmatics is always humble and always having to make a fresh start. The Church is challenged to know itself and to ask what to say today.

3. Dogmatics as an Act of Faith

Dogmatics is impossible except as an act of faith in obedience to Jesus Christ. Since faith is God’s gracious address to man, then by presupposing faith dogmatics also presupposes at every step God’s free grace, which he may at any time give or refuse. Thus we can only proceed by saying, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

Note on translation:

The paragraph at the bottom of p. 13 begins, “2. Dogmatics as an enquiry presupposes that the true content of Christian talk about God must be known by men.” I found this confusing, since the ensuing paragraph does not explain why men have to know the content of Christian talk about God. But the G. T. Thompson translation ends the sentence, “… must be known humanly,” i.e., we can’t know it in any other way than in a human mode of enquiry. The ensuing paragraph makes more sense with this beginning.

At times like this I wish I had a copy of the German.

Comments:

From the beginning of section 1 Barth displays the resiliency of a theology that is truly and thoroughly based on God’s revelation of himself to us in Jesus Christ.

Is theology a science? Who cares what scientists think? Their concept of science is pagan, their certainty is quasi-religious, and their Aristotelian tradition is only one among others. And we only call theology a science as a favor to them! LOL!