Election

While Karl Barth has received more than widespread revocation from Calvinist theologians the world over, it is my humble opinion that his writings on the subject of election, as I have read them from his work Church Dogmatics, have great influence over the entire subject.
It is my understanding that the debate was begun by John Calvin, a mid to late 16th century theologian, and arguably one of the most important to date. Calvin believed that God chose some humans for salvation through Christ. This statement by all means would then logically imply that God also chose some to not receive salvation through Christ, or more directly, to chose some for eternal damnation. This has become known as “double predestination (see Westminster Confession of Faith).” I don’t want to get into the idea and theology of absolute decree, but it is my opinion that Calvin’s absolute decree takes away the fundamental Christian concept of human independence, the idea that God gave us the ability to chose, independent of external, divine, force.
Barth believed that the idea of absolute decree, as explained by Calvin, undermined God’s sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Pointing instead to His decree being the willful sacrifice of His son on the cross, an act that beckons human response. Barth maintains the doctrine of double predestination that is core to the Reformed teachings, but moves the center of absolute decree to be over the person of Jesus Christ, and salvation through Him. Thus, Jesus is the vessel for both dietous election, and divine reprobation.
As I have explored the heart of this debate, I have begun to realize something about theology as whole. It is not so much that there is two sides to every debate. That there is a line in the sand that one must stand on one or the other side, poised for attack of the other. It is much more that there are forces, pulling in dissimilar directions that keep the debate in tension. I like this analogy more because it doesn’t cause static. It keeps a great almost anxious heart to explore either direction. More deeply spurring the Christian mind to investigate these concepts. I am so deeply thankful for Barth dusting off this tired old theology, and giving it some new depth. While I do not claim to be so wise as to be able to make a decision on this, I believe that Barth’s understanding more closely matches the heart of God. That by giving people more choice, it more clearly shows His greatness.