As of late I have been cultivating a great appreciation for Karl Barth, in general, and for his view of election, in particular. But I have a question, and I’m hoping that some of those students of Karl Barth, who might read here, would be willing to help clarify this question for me. My question has to do with Karl Barth’s anthropology, relative to his Christology; as I understand it, Barth believes that humanity, per Christ’s humanity, has freedom for God —in other words, as humanity has been objectified and assumed in to the humanity of Christ, we now have the capacity to be for God, as the Son is for God. Here is where I need clarification, if humanity is now for God, in Christ, objectively, then how can some humanity continually choose for self? When I was reading the Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, one of the authors, I forget which one, communicated what I just described above — that man can reject their election, subjectively, in Christ. In other words, if genuine freedom is for God, at least for Christ, then if humanity is indeed in Christ, i.e. Barth’s election, then how can this freedom be negated or rejected or refused by humanity — that does not cohere, at least in my mind. If man is free to be the creature that he is, and given space for freedom, as he has been reified, in Christ, then by definition, this freedom is for God alone; and not against him. Which if man can truly reject God, as this particular author asserts, mentioned above, then this freedom for God, in Christ, is non-sequiter, as far as I can see.
I would really appreciate any insight that any of you might be able to provide for me on this.