Karl Barth and Neoorthodoxy

Transcription

1 Karl Barth and Neoorthodoxy CH512 LESSON 21 of 24 Lubbertus Oostendorp, ThD Experience: Professor of Bible and Theology, Reformed Bible College, Kuyper College We have already touched on the importance of the doctrine of a universal reconciliation as taught by Barth. It was not only a universal reconciliation but also essentially an effective reconciliation. In other words, we are not here dealing with a universal atonement which must be supplemented by some act of man. I say it is essentially effective because Barth certainly objects to a kind of automatic reasoning from this universal reconciliation to the impossibility of anybody being lost. Therefore, we call it essentially effective, but time and again Barth does talk about irresistible grace, about an accomplished act, about the conversion of every man unto God in Jesus Christ. He knows, he says, no man outside of Christ. The reconciliation, moreover, is accomplished in such a way that all that is required of man is that he shall recognize it as an accomplished fact. It remains for us in this lecture to deal more extensively with the doctrine of reconciliation. Barth deals with this at great length in the four last volumes of his Church Dogmatics. He covers not only the objective side but also the subjective. In the subjective side he realizes that he will be saying many things which will appeal to his more pietistic readers. He will be speaking about the same things which we all talk about: faith, justification, and sanctification. However, he himself warns us that he does not use these terms with the same meaning that they have usually had. Indeed, many of the former dialectical theologians with whom he had associated found him moving too far in the direction of fundamentalism. He who had said no good word about man now seems to be able to find the possibility of a real sanctification and of some real change in man. 1 of 9

2 But again, the writer himself assures us, and particularly takes trouble to assure these associates, that there is no break with the basic view which he has adopted since his departure from liberalism. He is only here developing it more consistently and more thoroughly. If we express the doctrine of reconciliation in its most general terms, then it would seem that we and he are speaking the truth together and that here we have the truth and the whole truth. Man is pictured by Barth as a lost sinner who was alienated from God. This is his predicament. He is reconciled to God only because Jesus Christ took our place. This is an act of the greatest free grace of God required by God; for God required that the Son of God should become man and that He should be involved with us by birth, and in this case for Barth also, very remarkably, a virgin birth: that the Son of Man should suffer, that He should die, and that He should experience some kind of actual resurrection. Here we are on familiar ground and it is most refreshing to hear this reformed liberal speaking of the amazing grace of God in apparently such orthodox terms. In fact, we are tempted at this point merely to agree with him. Since we are virtually saying the same thing, undoubtedly we must be meaning the same thing. And this temptation has indeed been yielded to by, we think, many evangelicals who have looked at Barth at this point. They have said, Here is an evangelical. Let us work with him. We think the same thoughts. We speak the same thoughts. Barth himself, however, points out that there is a difference between the work of atonement as he teaches it and any theories of the reconciliation which others teach. He himself wants to establish this kind of difference. However, at this point, we must again come back to the thought that the theory of the atonement is not itself the reconciliation. Barth also says, you must not think that my theory is the reconciliation. The reconciliation is there and we believe in it, and we may all thank God for this: that various theories of the reconciliation have certainly not been able to become a substitute for the fact of the reconciliation. Men have turned their thought and their face to Jesus Christ. This was one thing. They have tried to express in language and in doctrinal propositions the understanding of this reconciliation. This is another thing. Again, let me emphasize this fact: Barth believes this and we believe this: that there is a great distinction between trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ and having a theory about reconciliation. 2 of 9

3 However, here is it just not to Barth himself who refuses to let the matter rest at this. He is not willing to say, here is Jesus Christ, trust Him, He took our place. In fact, He is unsparing in his criticism of any other view of the atonement than his own; and, of course, there always remains the question whether we do agree when we seem to agree on the use of words. Barth, for one, continually seeks to make plain that he does not want to be understood in the old orthodox way or in the old orthodox language. We do not mind that Barth wants to clarify and correct misimpressions that may have been caused by the old language. However, it seems to me that one of the greatest dangers always lies in this area of the use of language. Once more we find neoorthodoxy using the historic concepts and then filling them with quite different meaning. We may just as well be frank when we deal with men like Barth. Barth himself is very frank. He would want it no otherwise. He keeps saying that he differs from the orthodoxy, differs from the fundamentalist. Let us listen to him when he says so. Always again and again we must ask the question: What does he mean? And he wants to be very explicit in what he means. In this case, what does he mean by the reconciliation? Here we even have a problem with the translations, and we are told that the translators had many problems with a word like nihil, das nichts. They have had various problems, of course, in translating German into English. Some have even said that the English translation, which we have of Barth s works, is marred by many mistranslations. I ve not been able to check into this very matter, but this much is true and has been pointed out by Klooster and others that the German word versöhnung can have reference to various things in the English. It can either mean reconciliation or it can mean atonement. Sometimes it is used for the one; sometimes it is used for the other. It is the usual word for atonement, but undoubtedly Barth sometimes wants to differentiate it from the concept of atonement and stress the concept of reconciliation. Barth begins the doctrine of reconciliation with Jesus Christ and then works backward from it to the doctrine of sin. This is typical, again, of Barth s method. We learn the beginning from the end. We learn sin from what was done about sin. We learn sin from reconciliation. The kind of reconciliation which Christ accomplishes teaches us the kind of evil that had to be overcome and, undoubtedly, there is a lot to be said for this. 3 of 9

4 I think every evangelical preacher has preached about the seriousness of sin and the nature of sin and the seriousness of the wrath of God against sin as it is known only in Jesus Christ. Barth, however, is a bit more insistent upon this than we usually are. We know sin according to him not from the law but from the cross. We must read the law in the light of the gospel and, thus, interpret the commandments, but this is not merely what Barth means. He means that all things are to be read in the light of the cross. It is significant here, too, that ethics are placed under reconciliation and that even the Lord s Supper and baptism are included as parts of ethics. All of these matters are woven by Barth into a most systematic hole. We return to the need for reconciliation. The need for reconciliation undoubtedly lies in the fact of our alienation. This has usually been called the fact of sin. The Bible tells us that sin came through the fall. Neoorthodoxy speaks much of sin and of the fall and of the alienation of man from God. He likes to use the word man s predicament. It is difficult to pin Barth down on the matter of the historical fall. He does say that God did not create man evil. Therefore, we must not think of an eternally evil creation. On the other hand, for him there never was a golden age. He rejects the concept of the fall as a myth. He does not want to use the word myth and argues with Bultmann about this. Sometimes he is very vehement in his condemnation of Bultmann for calling these things myths. Barth, however, substitutes the term saga. Saga for him seems to imply a kind of legendary history. It is a history about something that has happened or that could have happened in some form or other but it didn t happen in the way that ordinary things happen. However, Adam is every man, and Genesis tells us that we began our story. We began our consciousness and knowledge of man with sinful man. Since man was created for a covenant relationship with God, he is not fulfilling his purpose because he is a covenant breaker. When we speak of a covenant of redemption, however as we sometimes speak of a covenant of redemption preceding the covenant of deliverance as it was actually carried out in Jesus Christ I say when we speak of such a covenant of redemption between God the Father and God the Son in our orthodox theology, Barth takes strong objection. 4 of 9

5 He knows no such possibility of an agreement between the Father and the Son. He will have no such possibility in which the Son should offer certain things to the Father and the Father certain things to the Son. He here is very strong only on the unity of purpose of Father and Son. All must be love, and love must be all. If there is to be in the love of God a kind of interrelation in which the Son offers to do certain things for the Father and the Father requires certain things from the Son, this must be dismissed. He says that he knows of no such possibility that the Son could even thus have some conversation with the Father about a covenant and plan of redemption. For such a covenant relationship in the Trinity is unthinkable. Man s sin is that man does not want to recognize the grace of God and live under this grace of God. In discussing the need of reconciliation, Barth is quite insistent that no atonement really has to be offered unto God. There is really no possibility of changing from wrath to love. Certainly God does not need an offering to be given to Him to bring Him into a right relationship with us. Thus, in discussing the vicarious atonement, Barth takes a different slant. Barth spends very little time on such vicarious concepts as the atonement, considering it essentially unworthy of God. He dismisses it as something utterly unworthy of God. Might one say that in his thinking it is only man that has to be reconciled? And indeed he says this explicitly. God does not have to be reconciled with man; man only has to be reconciled with God. It is only in the mind and heart of man that the reconciliation must be realized. It is already in the heart of God. There is essentially no Godward offering but basically only a manward direction, a manward offering on the part of God. Does this place Barth s concept of reconciliation fundamentally within the area of a kind of moral influence theory? I believe it does. I believe in having only a manward reference in the process of reconciliation, that somehow or other God has to do the thing that is able to restore man and give man again his existence and speak to man. Barth is falling into line with moral influence theories of reconciliation. And if this is true, it is by no means obviously or simply true, let me say, for Barth makes every effort to give a kind of objectivity to the transaction between God and man. But this is certainly done in a different way from the usual doctrine of a vicarious atonement. Barth departs radically, in other words, from the historical concept that God required a vicarious atonement in which Jesus had to sacrifice Himself and offer an offering unto God. 5 of 9

6 Historically, this has been the attitude of the atonement and has undoubtedly been the dominating concept particularly in Western theology. It was the concept no doubt of Luther and of Calvin, of the Reformation and of all the evangelicals, orthodox, and fundamentalists since the days of the Reformation. Barth departs from this vicarious atonement in the line of others who have departed from it, in the line somewhat of moral influence, God is acting toward man. Might we call this also a doctrine of reconciliation by incarnation? For Barth, the very act of incarnation has more to do with the reconciliation than it does in our ordinary theological positions. Reconciliation is in the fact that God became man and herein man became God and now we have the God-man. That God became man, he calls the priestly function. That man became God is the kingly function. For herein, you see, man is glorified and man is united with God and man has his kingly function in this: that he becomes God; and that Jesus is the God-man is the prophetic function. What we usually call the humiliation is also actually the exultation. It is in the incarnation that God is most gracious, that God is God in the highest and that man is most highly exalted. For what could be a higher exaltation than that man should thus be brought into union with God? It is man s exultation but it is also, in a very real sense, the declaration of God s glory: here God is in the highest. It is here that the great exchange must take place. God takes man s place. The judge Himself is to be judged. The eternal Son of God goes into a far country like a prodigal son. God takes the place of sinful man. He does not deny the sin of man but God affirms the sin of man. God says man is sinful. I know he is sinful; I recognize his sin. He exercises His righteousness and justice not so much by exacting a certain thing from Christ because of the law of righteousness. According to Barth, this is a complete misunderstanding of the concept of righteousness. God exercises His righteousness in Christ just in this very fact that He is merciful and forgiving, but that He is merciful and forgiving at a very real cost. This is the self-sacrificing love, and this is that kind of love which we call righteousness. To be loving in this way is to be righteous. God is loving in this way; therefore, His righteousness is His love. 6 of 9

7 There are very many interesting aspects to this whole approach. We notice that we have the framework and much of the terminology of a traditional picture of the atonement. One might say all the words are here. Sacrifice is here, vicarious sacrifice is here, wrath of God is here, taking our place, judgment all these things are here. The cross is brought into the center; and we are assured that only the one who was indeed the Son of God by virgin birth and who is, in very deed, the Son of God can make this reconciliation through His cross. Every effort is made to accept only such a reconciliation as is in Jesus Christ. However, do the words have the same meaning as they usually have? When there is talk about fulfilling the law of God and bearing the wrath of God and fulfilling the righteousness of God, are we really dealing with any forensic or what might be called legal transaction between God and man? Or has all of any legal relationship been subsumed under this new concept of righteousness? Are all the transactions of God to be understood so dialectically that the transaction pictured by the Bible as the very real offering to God of an offering and sacrifice on our behalf becomes the very opposite? Both Berkouwer and Klooster have pointed out that Barth s whole direction indicates here only a suffering God; and they raise very serious questions about whether in the atonement we should picture God as this kind of a suffering God. Of course, they are fully aware that we are dealing here with some most difficult problems as to the involvement of God in Calvary. There are hymns and very good hymns that speak of Christ, the mighty Maker, [dying] for man, the creature s sin. But the question might be raised, has not the historic view of the incarnation been right in insisting upon the fact that the Son of God became man in order that just in His humanity and just in His manhood He could act truly and fully within the role of man? Thus, we glory in the cross, but we do not glorify crucifixion. Certainly we do not glorify the crucifixion and death of God. For Barth, this is a way of speaking of the true humanity of God. That God wants to suffer and wants to die is the God, of course, who s altogether man. However, this does not do justice to Chalcedon and to the distinction of the two natures. In fact, here in the relation of the two natures, Barth has not done justice to why the Son of God had to truly be man. I know that we must involve God very really in the suffering of the Son of God and in the sacrifice of His Son for us, yet any doctrine of the atonement 7 of 9

8 which does not do justice to the blood of the man Jesus Christ, offered in sacrifice to a righteous God, cannot satisfy the scriptural givens. Certainly God shows His love in the cross. The cross is an exercise of love, but the cross is also an exercise of a very real kind of justice. God spared not His Son but delivered Him up for us all; and if this has been a side of the atonement which we have neglected, Barth s emphasis is very good for us. However, what shall we say of the shedding of blood unto the remission of sins? Does this merely mean that God does something to Himself and that He wants to express how He feels for others? And having done it to Himself, He will now have to do it to no one else? Does it simply mean that God has justified His own actions? That is, that God has justified the way He has dealt with man and the way He has dealt with sin and has displayed a kind of righteousness or a kind of justice and especially a kind of righteousness which is love? Or is the ransom that was shed for us something very real? It is remarkable that we are dealing here with a concept of the priesthood; and Barth presents it as though the priesthood of Christ were the divine side of Christ. It is God who is here the priest. This is entirely in contradiction to the whole concept of the Old Testament priesthood; and it is in direct contradiction to Hebrews 5:1, which tells us that every high priest is taken from amongst men to offer his sacrifices to God. That s why we would hold that God Himself has provided the ransom and, thereby, has shown His great mercy and has provided the ransom of His own Son. It is just in His humanity that Christ is a priest; and if we wanted to talk about the kingly office, we could rather find some aspect of His divinity, which qualified Him for this kingship. Although in every case we would insist that the offices of Christ are best understood by insisting upon the God-man who fills these offices and by insisting upon these offices as basically carried out also in His humanity. Particularly, the priesthood is a human action. Within the framework of Barth s thinking, it becomes impossible to have anything but a universalistic application of this reconciliation. The incarnation is the great revelation of God, and not the pavement to God for our sins. The God-man, as the act of being God-man, is the prophet. This is a prophetic message. This is all that He can really say; and we virtually rule out all the words that Jesus speaks as a speaking prophet. 8 of 9

9 Barth tries to gauge the work of Christ from this incarnation and to put into the mouth of Christ only those words which agree with His sense of the incarnation. Meanwhile, making actward, we have lost the true freedom of the act and thus we build an idea of God, and by this idea of God construe what God must be and what He must do. We superimpose this concept of God upon the plain statements of Scripture. Any rationalization of reconciliation by incarnation, especially a dialectic rationalization of it, must lead us to a point far beyond the Scriptures. The incarnation, indeed, has much to say to us but we may not absolutize it as Barth does. It is true that God here is the God for us, that is, the God for mankind. But it is not this universal declaration that saved us. Not even believing in a kind of God like this would save us. The Bible tells us that we must believe in the only begotten Son of God and that we must believe that He shed His blood in ransom for us. Thus, there must be a sharing in the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf as an offering and sacrifice that is offered to God. Barth leaves no room for accepting this kind of thing by faith in a meaningful way. Thus, his concept of reconciliation is really a universalistic speculation. He tries to find in the being and nature of God the answer that alone can be found in the revealed gospel of God, which is a declaration of the expressed will of God. This gospel is that a man must find his shelter only under the blood of the lamb that was offered as a sacrifice to God for us. The whole concept of righteousness and justice has been changed. To justify for Barth is to justify the actions of God. Sacrifice is not an offering to God, but a manward offering from God to us. Therefore, it becomes an essential declaration or demonstration of God s love and really is no more a payment. We believe in a God who has exacted of us a payment for our guilt. This payment has been made in the blood of Christ. Christ-Centered Learning Anytime, Anywhere 9 of 9