BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

GEORGE W. TRUETT THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

UNIVERSALISM IN THE THEOLOGY OF KARL BARTH

SUBMITTED TO:

DR. KIMLYN J. BENDER

FOR THE COURSE:

THEO 7364 THE THEOLOGY KARL BARTH

BY

ELI GUTIERREZ
 Universalism in the Theology of Karl Barth

By Eli Gutierrez

Introduction.

Karl Barth is definitely one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. Also, his

theology has raised polemic and debate. Scholars and interpreters have been discussing the

meaning and implications of his theology even since the lifetime of the Swiss theologian. This

paper, in particular, aims to address the issue of universalism in Barth’s theology. It has been a

polemical question that has brought answers on both sides of the question. Therefore, it will be

necessary to refer to the answers of important scholars and theologians that find in Barth’s theology

the doctrine of universalism and also to those who defend him from the charge.

This issue raises from Barth’s doctrine of election, which is at the heart of his theology. Thus,

it would be necessary to explore it. In sum, Barth’s doctrine of election argues that Jesus Christ is

the electing God and the elected human. Jesus is the only reprobate one. The divine decision of

election has been taken according to God’s being as the one who loves in freedom. Therefore, it is

the divine Yes to all humanity, it is his love toward us, and it is irrevocable regardless the human

response because it is his free sovereign decision. Thus, it is natural to ask whether that means that

all humanity will be saved at the end.

At first glance, it seems that it does, but a closer look will show that the question is more

complicated. Barth himself never stated explicitly that his theology implies universalism. As a

matter of fact, he denies that his doctrine of election necessarily includes universal salvation a

logical conclusion. For Barth, it is an unanswered question as long as God is free and his decision

is something that corresponds only to himself. However, for Barth, there remains the hope that

God elected all humanity and that such election is irrevocable.

This paper does not pretend to give a definitive answer nor to bring new insights into this matter.

The aim of this paper is to explore the question. The intention is to look how other scholars have

1
addressed the question, to learn where does the issue arise from the theological thinking of Barth,

and, finally, to offer some reflections for today’s church. Barth’s theological thinking in this matter

could bring important insights to the way in which we think theologically about salvation, to our

interpretation of Scripture, and, on a pastoral level, to our understanding of God’s Yes to us which

gives the security of his irrevocable love.

Barth’s universalism: charge and defense.

The polemic about Barth’s universalism has to do with the ambivalence with which he spoke about

it. On one hand, his theology clearly includes a universal scope. And on the other hand, he denies

explicitly that universalism is necessarily an implication of his doctrine. He does not deny that he

believes that God will save all humanity, he denies that it is a necessary consequence of his

theology and that it is an obligation of God to save all. Barth affirms universal election, but he

cannot definitely state that in the end there would be no human being in the hell because that is a

matter that only God can determine in his own freedom. Thus, some scholars have found that

Barth’s theology necessarily and logically leads to the belief in universal salvation while others

have defended him from the charge of “universalist”.

Emil Brunner is perhaps who most harshly charges Barth about his universalism. He argues that

while the doctrine of Karl Barth is not the apokatastasis of Origin and his followers it does imply

some kind of universal salvation. According to Brunner, Barth’s doctrine of election, in which

Jesus is the only elected man and the only reprobate man, maintains that through Jesus Christ all

humanity is saved from the wrath of God and participates in his redemption. Referring to Barth’s

doctrine of election Brunner says that “since Jesus Christ appeared, and through Him, there are no

longer any who are rejected. Not only for those who are in ‘Him’ through faith but for all men”.1

Brunner critiques the fact that the theology of Barth implies universalism and says that “in doing

1
Emile Brunner, Dogmatics, vol. 1 (Lutterworth Press: London, 1949) 348.

2
so Karl Barth is in absolute opposition, not only to the whole ecclesiastical tradition, but–and this

alone is the final objection to it–to the clear teaching of the New Testament.”2 According to

Brunner, this perversion of the gospel is due to the undervaluation of a subjective response of faith

in Barth’s theology.

Berkouwer, for his part, states that the question of universalism is a valid question that raises

from taking Barth seriously.3 According to Berkouwer, in Barth’s theology, the attempt to live in

terms of reprobation is powerless. He argues that “God in His grace has made the life of

reprobation ‘an objective impossibility’ for us”.4 In other words, the substitution in which Christ

has taken our place as the only reprobate can be denied but never be undone. Barth denies that his

doctrine necessarily implies universalism but Berkouwer affirms that “there is no alternative to

concluding that Barth’s refusal to accept the apokatastasis cannot be harmonized with the

fundamental structure of his doctrine of election.”5

Donald G. Bloesch maintains that “it cannot be denied that the logic of Barth’s theology leads

him in the direction of universalism”.6 For Bloesch, in the theology of Barth cannot be final

rejection of any human by God, there is no irrevocable condemnation.7 Bloesch emphasizes the

fact that while Barth admits that humans can resist God’s election, such resistance is not final.

However, Bloesch recognizes that in Barth coexist universalism and particularism at the same

time.8 Universalism because the grace and love of God are all-embracing toward humanity and

there is no possibility for humans to turn away. But there is also particularism because Barth

recognizes that not all receive the message of salvation. In the end, for Bloesch, the question of

2
Ibid., 349.
3
G. C Berkouwer. The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956) 112.
4
Ibid., 113
5
Ibid., 116
6
Donald G. Bloesch. Jesus is Victor! Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Salvation (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1976) 60.
7
Ibid., 63.
8
Ibid., 70-71.

3
the final destiny of those who reject God’s election is something that Barth never states

conclusively.

For George Hunsinger, the position of Karl Barth is best understood as a “holy silence”. 9 In

examining the different Christian answers to the question of hell and final damnation Hunsinger

labels the view of Barth as “Reverent Agnosticism: None of the Above.”10 According to

Hunsinger, for Barth it is difficult not to see the grace of God triumphing in the end; however,

Barth’s final concern is to respect the sovereign freedom of God. Therefore, it is not possible for

human theologians to calculate by reason what God will or must do in the end. Nevertheless, argues

Hunsinger, that does not mean a rejection of universalism because in Barth’s theology it remains

a possibility.

John Colwell, argues that Barth’s critics have overlook one aspect of his theology. Colwell

points to the fact that Barth rejects universalism as a doctrine but does not deny the possibility that

ultimately all humanity will be saved. For Colwell we must not cheapen grace as if universal

salvation were a certain obligation, but neither we must limit God’s grace by excluding the

possibility of it.11 Universalism, affirms Colwell, cannot be seen as a necessary implication in

Barth’s theology because the divine sovereignty and freedom are at the center of his understanding

of God’s being. The decisions of God are always according to his being; therefore, he loves in

freedom without any external necessity. Colwell points to Barth’s conception of God as the living

God, where nothing is static but everything is dynamic, his decisions, his actions, and his eternity.12

This is what Barth’s critics have overlooked, the eternity of God. His decisions cannot be regarded

as events in the past. In accordance with God’s eternal being, all his decisions are absolutely past,

9
George Hunsinger. Disruptive Grace. Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000) 243.
10
Ibid., 242
John Colwell. “The Contemporaneity of the Divine Decision: Reflections on Barth’s Denial of ‘Universalism’” in
11

Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993) 140.
12
Ibid., 151

4
present and future. He is not timeless, he lives time in his own divine way, in which his eternal

decision of election does no precludes any human decision.13 In this sense, argues Colwell, Barth

avoids the charge of universalism, appealing to God’s freedom and eternity.

Bruce McCormack maintains that Barth’s leaves open the question of universalism because of

his serious reading of the Scripture. McCormack begins by arguing that universalism is one of the

possibilities to a question that the New Testament leaves open. He argues that, Christian theology

(e.g. Calvinism and Arminianism) traditionally tries to eliminates the tension in the New

Testament between God’s universal reconciliation and a final judgment of separation. 14 For

McCormack, this is an unresolved tension in the Bible that we should not try to harmonize but

instead leave it open as well. For him, God intended the tension to protect us from ourselves.15 The

position of Barth on universalism, according to McCormack, is that we ought to hope it and even

pray for it, but not teach it.16

Barth’s universalism: the doctrine of election.

Election is at the heart of Barth’s theology and it is from this doctrine that raises the question of

universalism. Every aspect of his theology is Christocentric and so is his doctrine of election.

Speaking about election he states: “the simplest form of the dogma may be divided at once into

two assertions that Jesus Christ is the electing God, and that He is also the elected man.” (CD II/2,

103). The center of Barth’s doctrine of election is that Jesus is on both sides as the God who elects

and as the elected human. At the beginning of his section about “The Election of God” in Church

Dogmatics Barth maintains:

13
Ibid., 152
14
Bruce McCormack. “So That He May Be Merciful to All: Karl Barth and the Problem of Universalism”, in Karl
Barth and American Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011)
229.
15
Ibid., 240.
16
Ibid., 248

5
 The doctrine of election is the sum of the Gospel because of all words that can be said or heard it is the best: that
God elects man; that God is for man too the One who loves in freedom. It is grounded in the knowledge of Jesus
Christ because He is both the electing God and elected man in the One. It is part of the doctrine of God because
originally God’s election of man is a predestination not merely of man but of Himself. Its function is to bear basic
testimony to eternal, free and unchanging grace as the beginning of all the ways and works of Go (CD II/2, 3).

For Barth, the election of God is the gospel, it is good news. “It is not a mixed message of joy

and terror, salvation and damnation” (CD II/2, 13). He usually says that it is the Yes of God for

humanity. And it is a definite Yes without equivocacy or ambiguity. Jesus Christ is the revealed

will of God to create fellowship with humanity. The gospel is the good news of grace, God’s love

toward us as the one who loves in freedom. Election is, for Barth, the self-determination of God

to be himself to us in Jesus Christ. Primarily, it is about the electing God, the one who loves in

freedom and is himself toward humanity. Only then is it about the elected, but they are only elected

through Jesus Christ who is the real elected in whom are all other elected.

It is interesting that Barth treats the election of God within the volume of “The Doctrine of

God”, precisely because the election is all about God’s own being. What is at stake is that election

is not just an abstract concept but the very being of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the

God who elects is the God who loves in freedom revealed in Jesus Christ. There is no room to ask

whether God is for us or not, because Jesus reveals that God is for us definitely and irrevocably.

Barth rejects the Calvinistic view of a hidden will of God. In Barth, there is no “horrible decree”

as in Calvin’s doctrine of election. However, there is a doctrine of double predestination in Barth,

but in it, Jesus is both the elected and the rejected. Thus, election is by no means the election of

some human beings for salvation and the rejection of the rest for damnation. No, for Barth, the

only elected human and the only rejected human is Jesus Christ.

In Barth’s theology, election is Jesus. Only because of the rejection of Jesus, the God-man,

humanity has been elected. There is a substitutionary understanding of election. Jesus took the

place of the rejected for we to be elected. Therefore, the only true rejected human being is Jesus

Christ, who bore the wrath of God taking the place of the sinful human creature. For we to take

6
part in the election of God, Jesus took part in our rejection. Thus, the No of God to himself is the

Yes to us. In his own words: “That the elected man Jesus had to suffer and die means no more and

no less than that in becoming man God makes Himself responsible for man who became His

enemy, and that He takes upon Himself all the consequences of man’s action–his rejection and his

death.” (CD II/2, 124).

Moreover, Barth’s doctrine of election is the election of Jesus Christ, but it includes the election

of all humanity. However, that does not mean that it is an election of individuals, but it is the

election of a community. In his volume about “the Election of God” Barth argues that Israel and

the Church are the two representations of the one community elected by God for the sake of all

humanity. He says that “this one community of God in its form as Israel has to serve the

representation of divine judgment, in its form as the Church the representation of divine mercy.”

(CD II/2, 195). The point is not the negation of elected individuals, but that individuals are not

elected in an abstract but in the reality of a community.

There is a tension in Barth’s doctrine of election that apparently remains unsolved. On one

hand, the election of God is irrevocable and final. On the other hand, humans actually reject the

grace of God. First, it is necessary to show how Barth deals with God’s irrevocable decision of

election in Jesus Christ. He says: “If predestination is identical with the election of Jesus Christ,

then it is not possible that God’s freedom in which this decision takes place should be limited or

conditioned by the mystery of the existentiality of a corresponding human decision.” (CD II/2,

213). Jesus has taken the condemnation upon himself, therefore “rejection cannot again become

the portion of man” (CD II/2, 182). “He cannot undo the decision made by God in eternity […] he

cannot create any fact which takes away the Divine choice.” (CD II/2, 348).

As we have seen already, this divine decision of election has a universal scope. Barth says of

Jesus that:
He is the rejected One as He is and in that He is the elect One. Seen from the viewpoint of His election there are
outside of Him no rejected ones. It is rather so, that for the sake of the election of all the rejected ones He stands

7
 alone over against them all. For their sake He is the rejected One (in His reprobation making room for them as the
elect of God!) and precisely in this way He is the object of God’s gracious election. (CD II/2, 389).

In Christ, this universal scope is central to Barth’s theology and is not only maintained in his

section about election but throughout the Church Dogmatics. In the fourth volume he affirms:
For man’s election is his election in Jesus Christ, the son of God, whom the Father and He Himself, has not elected
for this or that man but for all men, and who has not elected this or that man but all men for Himself. In this twofold
election He has taken to Himself and away from them all the rejection which applies to all men as sinners and
separates them from God. Not in and of himself, but in Jesus Christ as the eternal beginning of all God’s ways and
works, no man is rejected but all are elected in Him to their justification, their sanctification and also their vocation.
(CD IV/3.2, 484).

Moreover, this election seems to have an irresistible character on believers and unbelievers.

Barth argues that “when there comes the hour of the God who acts in Jesus Christ by the Holy

Ghost, no aversion, rebellion, or resistance on the part of non-Christians will be strong enough to

resist the fulfilment of the promise of the Spirit which is pronounced over them too.” (CD IV/3.1,

355). And later, “the stream [of grace] is too strong and the dam too weak for us to be able

reasonably to expect anything but the collapse of the dam and the onrush of the waters. In this

sense, Jesus Christ is the hope even of these non-Christians.” (CD IV/3.1, 355-66).

In Barth’s theology, the judgment of the wrath of God is not the final word of God. For him,

God offers something beyond destruction, this means that there is an “eschatological possibility,

salvation on the day of the Lord. This does not remove or weaken the punishment, but it gives a

limit which encloses even that which is boundless in itself, eternal fire.” (CD II/2, 486). Indeed,

the final judgment is not separate from the final redeeming act of God. And all humanity will pass

through this judgment of God, which includes his grace (CD IV/3.1, 931). However, the final result

for unbelievers is not sure.

Furthermore, Barth states that “There is no condemnation–literally none–for those that are in

Christ Jesus.” (CD II/2, 167). Since it has been clear that all are elected in Christ it could be said

that in Barth’s theology there is no condemnation for any human at all. However, we should not

8
make conclusions so fast because, on the other hand, Barth sometimes maintains the tension in his

argument rather than pushing it to its logical conclusions.

It is important to note that Barth’s doctrine of election does not imagine a completely perfect

Christian humanity. He affirms that humans can reject or ignore their election and live as reprobate,

and in doing so live a lie. Nevertheless, God’s will toward them does not change and their election

is not revoked. This is what Barth calls the impossible possibility, the rejection of his grace. While

God’s decision of election does not require a human decision, it neither negates human freedom.

Naturally, this raises many questions. Does that mean that humans can thwart God’s purposes?

No, God’s will can be rejected but no one can live outside his will. Barth argues that an unbeliever:
…cannot reverse or change the eternal decision of God–by which He regards, considers and wills man, not in his
isolation over against Him, but in His Son Jesus. Man can certainly keep on lying (and does so); but he cannot
make truth falsehood. He can certainly rebel (he does so); but he can accomplish nothing which abolishes the
choice of God. He can certainly flee from God (he does so), but he cannot escape Him. He can certainly hate God
and be hateful to God (he does and is so); but he cannot change into its opposite the eternal love of God which
triumphs even His hate. (CD II/2, 317).

Dealing with the perfections of God’s being, Barth maintains that the omnipotence of God

includes his all-embracing and all-powerful knowledge and will. He knows and wills everything

that exists. However, he is not the author of evil. God is still constant and omnipotent, even

considering sin, evil, and the impossible possibility that humans live ignoring their election. Barth

says that: “We may fall into sin and hell, but whether for salvation or perdition, we cannot fall out

of the realm of God’s knowledge and so out of the realm of His grace and judgment. This is the

comfort and the warning contained in the truth of the divine knowledge.” (CD II/1, 504).

This means that God permits a positive or a negative answer to his grace, however, even the

unbelievers are still the objects of God’s grace, only that they ignore it. To the question of whether

God, being the sovereign Lord over all, is not also the author of evil and sin Barth answers with

an emphatical No! For him,

…this does not make God the author of sin any more than it excuses man. God does not will that sin should occur.
He also does not will that it should not occur. He wills to permit its occurrence. That is, He will not make its

9
 occurrence a physical impossibility. He wills the movement in the creature in which sin occur. But in this He wills
the good and the good only. (CD II/1, 572).

What Barth calls impossible possibility is, therefore, the result of the will of God to permit

humanity to answer negatively to his will. However, “the fact that the creature can fall away from

God and perish does not imply any imperfection on the part of the creation or the Creator.” (CD

II/1, 503). And, it is an “incomprehensible fact that the creature rejects the preserving grace of

God”. (CD II/1, 504). Thus, the fact that there are other real wills does not nullify the fact that God

is sovereign over everything and that his will is the source of every other being. Therefore, his

purposes are never thwarted.

It is clear that for Barth, God is Lord over everything that exists, and that nothing exists apart

his knowledge and his will. But, he is not the author of evil and sin. Also, he is the one who loves

in freedom and as such, he has revealed his love and grace to humanity. In Jesus Christ God has

said Yes to all humans. However, there is possible for humans to answer negatively to God’s grace.

Of course, there is a tension that Barth does not try to solve but he even highlights. It is a mystery

and remains a mystery, it is the paradox of the impossible possibility. What remains unanswered

in Barth’s theology, is whether the human rejection to God’s election is final or not. It seems that

it is not, but Barth is very cautions about not affirming conclusively that God will save all humanity

in the end.

Barth’s universalism: his own answer.

Stephen D. Morrison states that Barth’s answer to universalism is both yes and no.17 Indeed, Barth

rejects universalism and particularism. To show this it is necessary now to see how he addressed

directly the question of universal salvation. Within the section “The Determination of the Elect”

17
Stephen D. Morrison. Karl Barth in Plain English (Columbus, Ohio: Beloved Publishing, 2017) 109.

10
in the second volume of the Church Dogmatic he himself denied that universalism is a necessary

implication of his doctrine:

If we are to respect the freedom of divine grace, we cannot venture the statement that it must and will finally
be coincident with the world of man as such (as in the doctrine of the so-called apokatastasis). No such right
or necessity can legitimately be deduced. Just as the gracious God does not need to elect or call any single
man, so He does not need to elect or call all mankind. His election and calling do not give raise to any
historical metaphysics […] But, again, in grateful recognition of the grace of the divine freedom we cannot
venture the opposite statement that there cannot and will not be this final opening up and enlargement of the
circle of election and calling. Neither as the election of Jesus Christ, the election of His community, nor the
election of the individual do we know the divine election of grace as anything other than a decision of His
loving-kindness. We would be developing an opposing historical metaphysics if we were to try to attribute
any limits […] to the loving kindness of God. (CD II/2)

For Barth, therefore, affirming universal salvation as well as denying it would be an abstract

speculation. It would limit the freedom and the love of God, and that is why he rejects to give a

definitive answer. In the end, it is something that only God can decide and it is not up to us to solve

whether all or only some will be saved.

In The Humanity of God Barth addresses directly the question: “Does this mean universalism?

I wish here to make only three observations, in which one is to detect no position for or against”

(The Humanity of God, 61). First, “One should not surrender himself in any case to the panic which

this word seems to spread abroad, before informing himself exactly concerning its possible sense

or non-sense.” (The Humanity of God, 61). For Barth, here, one should not reject universalism so

fast without examining seriously its possibility.

Second, “One should at least be stimulated by the passage, Colossians 1:19, which admittedly

states that God has determined through His Son as His image and as the first-born of the whole

Creation to ‘reconcile all things (τὰ πάντα) to himself,’ to consider whether the concept could not

perhaps have a good meaning. The same could be said of parallel passages.” (The Humanity of

God, 61). In other words, Barth calls to consider the possibility of a final reconciliation on the

ground of taking Scripture seriously.

11
 And third,
One question should for a moment be asked, in view of the ‘danger’ with which one may see this concept gradually
surrounded. What of the ‘danger’ of the eternally skeptical-critical theologian who is ever and again suspiciously
questioning, because fundamentally always legalistic and therefore in the main morosely gloomy? Is not his
presence among us currently more threatening than that of the unbecomingly cheerful indifferentism or even
antinomianism, to which one with a certain understanding of universalism could in fact deliver himself? This much
is certain, that we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has
appeared in Jesus Christ. Our theological duty is to see and understand it as being still greater than we had seen
before. (The Humanity of God, 62).

In other words, universalism is preferable than pessimism. Again, Barth does not give a concrete

answer about the question of universalism, and the reason is God’s freedom. His answer is neither

a rhetorical device nor an avoiding of the question, it is what naturally follows from his

understanding of God as the one who loves in freedom.

Finally, dealing with the “impossible possibility” of humans living a lie and rejecting the

election of God Barth says that “To the man who persistently tries to change the truth into untruth,

God does not owe eternal patience and therefore deliverance.” (CD IV/3.1, 477). And later:
There is no good reason why we should forbid ourselves, or be forbidden, openness to the possibility that in
the reality of God and man in Jesus Christ there is contained much more than we might expect and therefore
the supremely unexpected withdrawal of that final threat, i.e., that in the truth of this reality there might be
contained the super-abundant promise of the final deliverance of all men. To be more explicit, there is no
good reason why we should not be open to this possibility. (CD IV/3.1, 477).

One may object that according to Barth God does not owe eternal patience to anyone. However,

the point is that salvation is not an obligation of God, there is no external force that makes him

save us. He saves us because he chooses to do so in his freedom. Thus, we cannot affirm that he

will necessarily save all but we can hope for it.

For Bart, what we must do regarding the question of universalism is to pray and hope for it. He

states: “If we are certainly forbidden to count on this as though we had a claim to it, as though it

were not supremely the work of God to which man can have no possible claim, we are surely

12
commanded more definitely to hope and pray for it as we may do already on this side of this final

possibility.” (CD IV/3.1, 477).

Barth’s universalism: significance for the church today.

At the heart of Barth’s theology is the claim that God is the one who loves in freedom. The self-

revelation of God in Jesus Christ shows that God is for humanity and not against us. His love for

us does not depend on anything we do but in his sole being. For the Christian believer, therefore,

there is nothing surer than the love of God for her or him. Barth’s doctrine of election may raise

some metaphysical questions but one thing is sure in it, God loves us.

In Barth’s doctrine of election, the only rejected man is Jesus Christ. Humans can answer

negatively to God’s grace, but they are not able to change God’s will. No human is rejected by

God because he has revealed his Yes to all humanity. Whether that means universalism or not is a

fair question, but it is not what is at stake in Barth’s theology. What is at stake here is God’s faithful

character. If he is truly the one who loves in freedom, if that is his very being, and if he is faithful

and constant in himself, then, he loves all humanity without condition.

Moreover, the theology of Karl Barth is essentially Christocentric. Thus, it is in Jesus Christ

that God revealed he is actually for humanity. His love is not just an abstract concept but a reality

that has been revealed to us in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The love of God for

humanity is so real that he himself bore the wrath of our guilt. He took the place we deserved. That

is not only a proof of his love, but his love actually redeeming us. And it is the ground for Christian

trust and confidence in his steadfast love.

In this theology, there is no place for doubt or anxiety. There is only certainty that God loves

us and that he is for us. There are no hidden decisions of God that may make us doubt of our

salvation. There is only the confidence that comes from the fact that our redemption depends only

in him, his faithfulness, his constancy, his power, his grace, his mercy, his love. It does not depend,

in any sense, on us, but only in him. The human decision is related to God’s election but, affirms

13
Berkouwer, “the divine decision, however, has been taken precisely over against the human

decision and can therefore not be undone by any human decision.”18 Nothing we can do and no

external factor can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ. Just as Paul said in Romans

8.

Barth’s theology arises from a serious reading of the Scripture. He is not discussing

metaphysics, he is exploring the revelation of the word of God. As a matter of fact, if he does not

affirm a universal salvation explicitly is in part because the Scripture speaks about damnation and

rejection. At the same time, the Bible speaks about love, death, and redemption for all humanity.

Barth, being faithful to the witness of the Scripture, does not resolve the tension but includes it in

his theology.

The church today can imitate Barth in this sense. So often we find discussions and debates

around abstract questions within the church. Many times, we argue using reasonable arguments

and metaphysics discourses about what is not completely clear in Scripture. And we do not wonder

if may be there is a reason why the Scripture does not answer all our questions. Instead of trying

to solve every tension and answer every question we should take seriously the word of God and

let the witness of Scripture to speak completely into our theological thinking. Sometimes we need

to just leave the question open when the Scripture leaves the question open.

There are so many divisions among Christian churches because of detailed theological debates.

Sometimes we find ourselves haunting witches, condemning each other, and separating the body

of Christ. But when we acknowledge that we cannot have an answer to every single question we

realize that living the Christian faith is much more than knowing answers to theological questions.

It is about living what God wants for us in Jesus Christ. And that does not mean being lazy nor

despising the serious study of the Christian faith. On the contrary, it is taking seriously the witness

of Scripture and study it with passion and commitment to the point of letting the word of God

18
Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace, 113.

14
speak rather than our own reason. If we do this, we may avoid useless discussions and use our time

and resources to other tasks more beneficial than condemning each other.

Finally, and before going to the conclusions, there is another reason why Barth does not affirm

universalism. And probably it is also another reason why the Bible does not state conclusively

universal salvation. There is an urgency of repentance in the gospel preached in the New

Testament. The preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ is a turning back to God which has eternal

consequences. Within the sovereignty of God who knows and wills everything that happens there

is also a human responsibility. This human freedom actually exists, only within the will of God

and not in a way that can thwart his purposes but is real. Therefore, the gospel should be preached

with urgency and seriousness. Whether or not God will save all humanity in the end it is up to him

and “it can only be a matter of the unexpected work of grace” (CD IV/3.1 477).

Conclusions.

Karl Barth leaves open the question of universalism. It is clear that he hopes and even prays for it,

but it cannot be affirmed as part of the teaching of the Christian church. Barth does not enter in the

discussion about universal salvation, but offers a different paradigm. As Bloesch said, “Barth

transcends the polarity between universalism and particularism in that he denies both of these as

rational principles or even as necessary conclusions of faith.”19

Undeniably, there is a universal scope in Barth’s doctrine of election. God is for all humanity.

In Jesus Christ, he has revealed his sovereign Yes to all. In this doctrine, Jesus is both, the elected

man and the electing God. Christ took the place that sinful humans deserved. He made himself the

rejected one for we to be elected. In this sense, Barth’s maintains a double predestination where

Jesus is both, the rejected and the elected.

19
Bloesch. Jesus is Victor! 70.

15
 Moreover, the doctrine of election is at the heart of Karl Barth’s theology and what is at stake

is the very being of God as the one who loves in freedom. Therefore, one thing is sure, that God

loves all humanity. This love is certain and irrevocable because it depends on his being. He is

constant and faithful and; therefore, his decision is irrevocable.

Admittedly, humans can reject the grace of God, but that rejection is an impossible possibility.

Unbelievers, then, live a falsehood but that does not change the will of God to love them.

Nevertheless, that neither means determinism not the certainty of universal salvation because God

is free and he has no obligation to save all. He saves in love and freedom and the decision to save

all is ultimately only his. We can hope for it but we cannot teach it conclusively.

Bibliography.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961.

Berkouwer, G. C. The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1956.

Bloesch, Donald G. Jesus is Victor! Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Salvation. Nashville, Tennessee:
Abingdon, 1976.

Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics. Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949.

Colwell, John. “The Contemporaneity of the Divine Decision: Reflections on Barth’s Denial of
‘Universalism’” In Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Book House, 1993. 139-160.

Hunsinger, George. Disruptive Grace. Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

McCormack, Bruce. “So That He May Be Merciful to All: Karl Barth and the Problem of
Universalism.” In Karl Barth and American Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. 227-249.

Morrison, Stephen D. Karl Barth in Plain English. Columbus, Ohio: Beloved Publishing, 2017.

16