Every now and then I like to stop, and reflect on where I stand theologically; relative to my developing views. This is one of those moments, I am going to articulate my views on: election, ordo salutis, and a few other sundry points. This will not be comprehensive or exhaustive, rather it will just be an off the top communication.

As my last post reflects I have been pondering some of the loci provided by Karl Barth’s theology, with hopes of assimilating his dogma into my own burgeoning theological framework. Thanks to feedback from some of you I have been able to see, more clearly, the trajectory set by Karl Barth; for example, on his view of election. It seems very clear to me that Barth’s trajectory reductio ad absurdum leads to “universalism,” in the sense that all humanity will eventually be saved (if this is not the case, then why do so many of his students go that way [?] — I think they are just being consistent with the theo-logic that Barth has left them with). Since scripture’s witness does not allow me to be a Universalist, then I must depart from the trajectory Barth has left. My perspective on election probably fits the infralapsarian outlook, and my view on the extent of the atonement fits what has been termed hypothetical universalism, i.e.that Christ died for all humanity, but it is only efficient for those who receive Him by faith.

Conversely, on the ordo salutis (order of salvation), I believe in a unilateral, not monergistic, work of God in salvation. In the sense that God initiates salvation through the Holy Spirit, via the instrumentality of the Scriptures, by disclosing the love of Christ to the heart of man which is in bondage to what Augustine has termed concupiscence (self-love), namely sin; subsequently creating space for man to actively RESPOND (thus not monergistic) to God’s call on their life. I believe that this elect man is re-created in the new nature (cf. II Cor. 3; 5:17) of Christ, which is the space necessary to respond to God’s call by faith. I believe all humanity is objectively oriented to Christ, but only the elect are subjectively oriented to Him by faith. In other words, Christ is representative of both the reprobate and elect, the reprobate stay at the cross, the elect rise with Christ. This is a little sketchy, and I am open for any correction on this.

This is where I stand at the moment, I am not dogmatically holding to any of this, this just happens to be the best way for me to think about what Scripture communicates relative to these issues. This is all subject to change, and I look forward to your feedback.