According to theologian Roger Olson, yes, he was. Or, rather, his doctrine of election logically leads to universalism.
Roger Olson just published an essay on his blog on this question (“Was Karl Barth a Universalist? Another Look at an Old Question“), after a year or so digging into Church Dogmatics. He says ”I do not claim that this article contains anything previously undiscovered or unheard of. However, I do not know of anything in print that covers precisely the same ground (e.g., including Barth’s views regarding free will).”
Olson states that Barth was quite coy on the subject (and denied being a universalist), but that
I will argue here that Barth’s doctrine of God’s gracious election necessarily, logically requires a peculiar kind ofuniversalism. To say the things Barth said about it and then deny universalism was, or would be, a logical contradiction—something that makes any system of thought incoherent and thereby nonsensical. But I will also argue that Barth did not explicitly deny universalism. What he denied was the necessity of universal salvation—that God must save everyone.
For the nearly uninitiated, such as myself, Olson provides a great overview of Barth’s doctrine of election. I won’t even attempt an overview of Olson’s overview, I’ll leave you to read his essay. (Which is really the point of this post, to direct you there. The rest of what follows here is filler. 
)
Quite frankly, I’m not in a position to comment about Barth’s views on election. I will, however, highlight some material that stood out for me and some thoughts arising from it.
1. Barth’s doctrine of election begins and ends with Christ, which Olson sees leading inevitably to universalism. I’d like to see him connect the scriptural dots, as it were, on his view, so I guess there’s another reason for me to get into Dogmatics. Having said that, it does make a great deal of sense to begin and end with Christ, and the way Barth goes about it (as explained by Olson) makes a great deal of sense viz-a-viz universal salvation. And, if I may get a little subjective here, it’s quite theologically and spiritually moving. There are, of course, some tensions or paradoxes that neither Barth nor Olson clear out of the way, but on this subject in particular I think paradox is almost a given, no matter what position one takes.
2. Barth argues that Christ is the Elect (in whom all humanity is elected), even in the double predestinarian sense of being also the one who is rejected (or takes on that death and rejection on our behalf). That sentence doesn’t quite do Barth (or Olson) justice. Let me quote Olson (who, incidentally, needs to learn about blockquotes to make a clearer distinction between his own words and Barth’s) in a couple of places I was particularly struck:
What singles [Jesus] out from the rest of the elect, and yet also, and for the first time, unites Him with them, is the fact that as elected man He is also the electing God, electing them in His own humanity. In that He (as God) wills Himself (as man), He also wills them. And so they are elect “in Him,” in and with His own election. (Emphasis mine.)
and (definitely quoting Barth):
“The rejection which all men incurred, the wrath of God under which all men lie, the death which all men must die, God in his love for men transfers from all eternity to Him in whom He loves and elects them, and whom He elects at their head and in their place.” (p. 123) [in CD II/2]
This understanding gives Jesus’ teaching that “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” a whole new (or deeper) meaning: greater love has no one than God in Christ who took on damnation on behalf of his friends. (Perhaps a bit strong, but that’s where this seems to lead.)
3. Barth understood the term “salvation” on two levels:
One is what happened for all people in Jesus Christ, in his election and reprobation, in his incarnation and atoning death, and in his resurrection. It is finished—for everyone. The other is coming to know it and live in the new being of it—which is what makes one a Christian. But, for Barth, being “saved” in the first sense, objectively reconciled, forgiven, justified, is a “done deal” for all people in Jesus Christ whereas being “saved” in the second sense—something to be sought and found—corresponds to actualizing salvation in knowing, living and witnessing.
Perhaps not two understandings of salvation, rather one understanding of salvation with a subcategory of those who are aware of the salvation which is theirs (that is, Christians). Thus we have the saved (everyone?) and we have Christians as a subcategory of the saved.
This leads to this:
Barth argued that a person who fully understands his or her unworthiness for election cannot look upon anyone as rejected by God:
The believer cannot possibly confront the unbeliever with the suspicion that the latter is perhaps rejected. For he knows who has borne the merited and inevitable rejection of the godless, his own above all. How can he possibly regard others as perhaps rejected merely because he thinks he knows their unbelief and therefore their godlessness? If he does what becomes of his own faith? What of his own election? (p. 327)
Quite a wonderful insight, if you ask me, a grounded reason for not having an “us and them” view of the world.
4. I think this is also a good response to the common evangelical concern with universalism, namely, the Great Commission, the call to witness, to make disciples, to preach the Gospel. Does not the idea of universalism make the Great Commission, the notion of proclamation, of the call to make disciples sort of a moot point? If all people are saved anyway, why bother with proclamation?
The Great Commission is not nullified by a universalist doctrine. In fact, one can still speak of “converts” when holding a universalist position, but in the context of converts to the truth of the world, namely, that Jesus has saved and is saving. I see echoes here in Bonhoeffer in Ethics, at least as far as I can recall: you are saved, embrace that reality! This, it seems to me, is equally good reason to proclaim the gospel as the traditional urgency about hell and damnation, etc. The message is effectively the same. The difference is that the threat of hell is essentially erased in the Barthian (as explained by Olson) position. But why is the threat of hell a necessary part of proclamation of the Gospel (note I say the threat of hell, not hell itself, in which existence Barth appears to have believed)? It need not be (and some argue that the hell piece is not ultimately part of the Gospel proper, such as McKnight in The King Jesus Gospel).
5. Finally, I found it odd throughout this essay to hear of Barth scholars insisting on denying universalism in his thought. The impression I get is that they’ve rejected universalism already and then insisted that Barth couldn’t possibly be a universalist, because universalism is “heresy”. It seems to me they (and we) should take Barth on his own words, whether or not universalism is “heresy”, to see if what he says has the ring of truth to it. In the end, the feeling I get (again, from Olson’s representation of things) is that Barth scholars are looking for even the tiniest hint of non-universalism in Barth simply because they’re of the opinion that universalism is bad, not because Barth is clearly not a universalist. They’re trying to “save” Barth from something he doesn’t need saving from. He thought what he thought.
Those are some of my thoughts. Olson’s essay is a long (but enjoyable) one, with lots of material from Dogmatics covered, and there is much more worth commenting and reflecting on that I’ve already forgotten! (A shortcoming of reading online [no underlining] and me not taking notes as I read the article on my iPhone.)
Go, read the essay. Tell me what you think.
This is great, Marc. The article is worth reading just for Olson’s excellent introduction to Barth’s doctrine of election. Although, I would be hesitant to recommend it to a first-time reader of Barth, just because the discussion is framed around the question of universalism, and may therefore predispose them to disagree with Barth in principle before hearing what Barth actually has to say.
I think that Barth often sounds like a universalist both because he took seriously the universal scope of Jesus Christ seriously and because he locates the doctrine of election within the doctrine of God.
I’m always wary when theologians try to relate what must be “logically necessary” to questions of this sort, because (as Barth himself insisted) sin is the “impossible possibility.” Or, as Kierkegaard said, “sin posits itself.” All talk of “logical necessity” falls apart when sin enters the equation. It is no more “illogical” to deny universalism in Barth’s theology than for sin to enter into a good world created by a good God. Maybe that’s why this is so elusive in Barth?
If I may quote a very young Bonhoeffer, “The strongest reason for accepting the idea of apoctastasis would seem to me that all Christians must be aware of having brought sin into the world, and thus aware of being bound together with the whole humanity of sin, aware of having the sins of humanity on their conscience. Justification and sanctification are inconceivable for anyone if that individual believer cannot be assured that God will embrace not only them but all those for whose sins they are responsible. But all statements in this regard only express a hope; they cannot be made part of a system” (Sanctorum Communio,DBWE 1, 287 [my emphasis]). Bonhoeffer’s openness to apoctastasis are largely grounded in the argument of this particular book, but even then, he insists that such things cannot be made part of a system.
I also wonder, as an experiment, could we see how well our evangelism holds up if we omit talk about hell? Is God’s grace in Christ enough, or do we need the threat of eternal torment? This is not a statement of the validity of that doctrine, but rather about its place and importance.
My overall impression of Olson’s evaluation of Barth: “Barth is a universalist—not that there’s anything wrong with that!”
Good point about first-time readers and universalism. Of course, this relates to one of my beefs here: that people reject an idea before they hear its (coy and possibly non-) proponent’s argument.
I think viz. the logical necessity piece, it is a logical necessity (in Olson’s view) of Barth’s doctrine, not a logical necessity in a general sense. This was, apparently, one of Barth’s concerns: that it is not necessary for God to save all in Christ, as if he really had no choice in the matter.
I’m not suggesting we omit talk about hell from evangelism, I’m suggesting that evangelism could work (in Barth’s framework as I understand it from Olson) without the threat piece (i.e. “scaring” people into heaven), even if we talk about hell as a place where, say, we *might* have spent eternity had it not been for God’s work in Christ.
Of course, this is me just thinking out loud…
[...] Was Barth a Universalist? (iheartbarth.wordpress.com) [...]
Hello all. I am a friend of Rick’s and a former fellow student of his at Prov. I have not read Olson or Barth; however, my quick comment regarding grace without hell, is to ask the question, “What is grace graciously sparing us from?” Also, take a look at the modern evangelical “grace-based” church. Does it have a standard of holiness any longer? It resembles far more Bonhoeffer’s cheap grace, grace without a cross.
Even within a Christian universalist framework, grace still graciously spares us from hell. We make a mistake to think that this sort of universalism posits that there is no hell.
Should we then amend Neibuhr, “A God without wrath brough men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of Christ without a cross” to save them from a hell to which they were never actually headed?
Once again, I have not read Barth or Olson, and so perhaps should not even post here; however, where in the Scripture do we have a picture of God as the Incarnate sinner? Christ redeems humanity in his death on the cross — I get that. However, the Incarnation brought Christ into the world, not in sinful flesh, but in the sinless. Christ may be the Elect One; but what is the Scriptural basis by which one is incorporated into his election? Is it not by the New Birth and/or baptism in accordance with Romans chapter 6?
And, does not including the reprobate in that election do violence to the New Testament picture of the body of Christ, which is the ecclesia, which is referred to as the Church? Paul says to the Corinthians that he betrothed them to Christ as a spotless bride. Ephesians 5 has the picutre of marriage, where Christ has given himself up for the church that she should be a radiant church; where is the Scripture is the oppositing picture and/or analogy — or outright teaching — that Christ also wants to present the wicked to God as a despicable mess, polluted and stained by their inward rage and hostility?
I guess I will have to read Barth one of these days when I get out of the trucking business and have time to glean from the masters. Until then, I am stuck with my Bible, which I apparently do not interpret after the manner of Barth.
I’m not sure how to respond to all this, Keith. I’m not saying Christian universalism doesn’t have any tensions or problems. It has those, just like many other theological approaches. I’m not prepared to make a defence of universalism here or debate election!
However, I will say this in response to the Neibuhr quote: Christian universalism does not (per se) do away with God’s wrath, or sin, or judgment, or the cross. Those are all there, those are all affirmed–but they are all understood to have been taken up by Christ on the cross. At least that’s how I understand the position.
I don’t quite follow your second-to-last paragraph, but for what it’s worth, Romans 5 came to mind as I read: that “While we were still sinners Christ died for us”. That’s pretty huge–we may have been (and remain) a “despicable mess, polluted and stained by [our] inward rage and hostility,” yet God loves so much that he sent his Son in spite of that. (But maybe that has nothing to do with what you were saying.
Mark, perhaps I should not have been commenting on your material, as I have not read Barth nor Olson.And I realize that you are not defending Universalism; however it does appear as if the proposition intrigues you — which is does me too; in fact, I could wish that Universalism were true if I did not have so many Biblical evidences to the contrary.
I believe it was Philip Schaff who wrote in his Church History that both Hyper- Calvinism and Universalism leave absolutely no room for human freedom. Both are posulated upon a rigid determinism. In Calvin there are the saved and the damned. In Universalism only the saved. In both systems, the individual has no individual choice; he is part of a predetermined and predestined people. If Schaff is correct, then you cannot discuss Universalism without discussing election, for it is conditioned upon a rigid election and an unconditional predetermination to life.
Barth must have realized that also, for it appears as if he grounds the entirety of salvation in Christ’s election as well. In order for Christ to save the reprobate, he (Barth) has to come up an election of Christ to reprobation. My problem with Barth, which I was trying to communicate, is that we have no positve image of Christ as a reprobate, nor do we have a call to image Christ, or to follow him in that reprobate image.
We do, however, have a positive call to follow Christ in the image of his Incarnation. Throughout the early church, when it came to the goal of salvation, the intended result of salvation was often set forth as divinization. It was divinization — or what we would call ‘godliness,’ or ‘Christlikeness,’ to which we are to aspire. Peter states that Christ has left us with our example that we should follow in his steps. Thus, wherever the reprobation of Christ is referred to (i.e., his death on the cross, taking the sin of the sinner), the corresponding example is always righteousness, not a continuation in wickedness.
I believe this is an absolutely critical distinction. The goal of salvation is transformation. We have lived long enough in the profligate lifestyle of the world. Come out of that, live differently; live as Christians, Peter says, not as the profligate sinner.
Those who saved by the power of the Spirit engage in some sort of Incarnational living. We are redeemed from the reprobation; we are saved to righteous and transformation. Do we arrive here on this earth? No. But we start here. Paul says we have this treasure in earthen vessels; Christ indwells us, and the power of his Spirit truly makes all of the difference.
As to Barth’s quote about looking upon unbelievers as if they are rejected, it is true that spiritual arrogance should never be characteristic of Christian. Certainly we should have a hope for every person’s salvation, and we should pray, and strive, and even beg (following Paul) others to be reconciled to Christ. However, Barth seemingly overlooks a critical concept, that is that faith is essential to one being saved. Thus a believer can look upon an unbeliever and be concerned that the person is lost. Does he do so overlooking the fact that “there but for the grace of God go I?” No! But he also does recognize God’s graciousness iin his life which is indicated by the fact that he DOES have faith, whereas his unbelieving neighbor does not have it. And this prompts that person, not to gloat, or to look at the neighbor with disdain, but to look to God in gratefulness, for having become a recipient of such a gracious salvation.