In Praise of Monergism - Barth, Romans, and Reformation, Pt.2

I think that Karl Barth is the Martin Luther of modern Protestantism.

I have already written (in the previous entry) of how Barth, in his commentary to the Romans, handles deftly the critical Protestant understanding of faith - that faith in itself is no thing, it is a negation, it is not a hand that reaches to God but a void that is filled by God. Even a self-effacing humility brings some glory to the man or woman who possesses it. To be justified by faith is to be justified by God's acceptance of our nothingness on behalf of Christ's fullness. We look at Jesus, realizing He has saved us by His blood. That realization "earns" us the moniker, Righteous One.

Though Barth's doctrine of Scripture is at best sticky, his comprehension that salvation and redemption is entirely of God and not of man is quite probably more important than the fundamentalist's confession that the Scripture is without error. Many confess the infallibility of the Bible only to follow up that confession with the belief that such a doctrine is vital to salvation. Such a belief usually is followed by other "musts" such as a dispensational hermeneutic and the rabid support of national Israel. Soon, if not already, justification by faith becomes salvation by belief - not trust but assertion. Salvation is hung on many pegs other than Christ. Right doctrine is not loving obedience but fearful, self-made righteousness.

I must clarify what I just said by reassuring my readers that I do believe the Bible to be without error, though the means of delivery is generally historically conditioned and the message sometimes limited. For example, Isaiah's "new heavens and earth" still have death in them, apparently. His vision could be of a millennial reign of Christ on this earth, but then his use of the term "new heavens and earth" would be later misused by both the Apostle Peter in his second letter and by the Apostle John, seer of the Revelation, if such were the case. Otherwise, and more likely, Isaiah was shown a vision of restoration, of things returning to the days of the patriarchs and closer and closer to the days of the Garden of Eden. Isaiah was seeing a vision that an Israelite could find hope in - restoration of God's blessing and grace in Creation. Other similar examples could be the prophets' visions of the ultimate restoration of Israel to the Land becoming co-opted by the New Testament writers into hope for the final resurrection. The prophets saw a partial picture of redemption, given by God in a conditioned manner that would stir hope in the people.

Such visions would not be "lies" by God. On the contrary, the continuing revelation of God throughout the time of the Apostles only expanded the already true but limited vision of God's people from before. An obvious example of this would be God's promise to raise up David's son to uphold his throne. This promise to David would eventually be expanded from embodying a godly Israelite monarch to being embodied by the Royal Son of God ruling the universe from Heaven's throne come to earth.

Having said all of that, I must continue to say that the infallibility of Scripture is vital to Protestant, evangelical faith. That salvation is only of God and not of man is MORE important than that. More important than either inerrancy or monergism, though, is the joyful acceptance and belief that Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, has come to earth to die for us and that by loving and faithful trust, we can find hope in the midst of death.