Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology

Karl Barth, the 20th century Swiss Reformed theologian, is known for his magnum opus Church Dogmatics in which he provided his Christocentric theology. Among the doctrines that Barth revises in the light of Jesus Christ, election is one of the most complex and radical. In fact, the past two decades have seen a plethora of publications on Barth’s doctrine of election—which includes reprobation—as it relates to other core doctrines such as the Trinity and the divine attributes. Into this seemingly unending debate, Shao Kai Tseng enters with Karl Barth’s Infralapsarian Theology: Origins And Developments 1920-1953, a revision of his doctoral thesis to argue that, although Barth considers his Christocentric revision of election (and reprobation) to be a “purified supralapsarianism,” he is–according to Tseng–closer to infralapsarianism while still upholding certain tenets of supralapsarianism. Therefore, Tseng employs a phrase throughout his work that Barth’s doctrine of election/reprobation is “basically infralapsarian,” or, as the object of divine election is fallen humanity, Barth’s doctrine of election is more in line with infralapsarianism than with supralapsarianism. Moreover, this is a work that traces the historical and genetic development of Barth’s doctrine of election from his Romans II era (1920-1921) up to and including his mature Christology and hamartiology in Church Dogmatics IV/1 (1951-1953).

Before entering Barth’s theology, in chapter 1 Tseng returns his readers to the lapsarian debates of the 17th century. He examines the long-standing debates over when God logically decreed his election of some humans out of the mass of perdition of the remainder of humanity. He looks to the precise and intricate terminology used by the supra- and infralapsarian groups, breaking down their central disagreement: whether God’s object of election is uncreated and unfallen humanity or created and fallen humanity. According to Tseng, this point of contention is the criterion which determines whether Barth is a “purified supralapsarian” or “basically infralapsarian.” In chapter 2, Tseng discusses section 33 of Church Dogmatics II/2, wherein Barth sets forth his “purified supralapsarianism,” arguing that, although there are still strong supralapsarian tendencies in Barth’s mature doctrine of election, he is “basically infralapsarian,” as he sees the object of election to be fallen humanity. In chapter 3, Tseng looks back at Barth’s theologically explosive commentary Epistle to the Romans (2nd edition) and contends that, although Barth is more supralapsarian regarding the eternality of divine election, he is more of infralapsarian regarding the temporal-historical actualization of God’s pretemporal election of humanity. In chapter 4, Tseng continue with Barth’s Göttingen-Münster period (1921-1930) in which Barth delivered two cycles of lectures on Christian dogmatics and began formulating a more infralapsarian Christology that would eventually unite with an ever-increasing infralapsarian view of election. Chapter 5 examines the Bonn years (1930-1935) during which Barth composed his influential book on Anselm of Canterbury’s theology and began Church DogmaticsI/1, in which Tseng notes Barth’s development of a robust infralapsarian posture due to the fact that the object of Barth’s doctrine of revelation is always the fallen, sinful human. Tseng detours in chapter 6 to a smaller, less-known work from 1936 titled Gottes Gnadenwahl (God’s Gracious Election). He contends that this work marks the beginning of Barth’s mature, Christocentric doctrine of election. In this work—under the influence of Pierre Maury—Barth argues for the first time that Jesus Christ is the electing God and the elect human in one, and that all humans are elect in him. As all humans are elected as fallen humans, Tseng believes Barth to be “basically infralapsarian.” This leads Tseng to Church Dogmatics II/2 (1939-1942) in chapter 7, arguing that Barth has finally united his implicit infralapsarian view of election and his emerging infralapsarian Christology in his mature doctrine of election. In chapter 8—the longest and most intriguing of the volume—Tseng analyzes Barth’s “historicized” Christology in Church Dogmatics IV/1, particularly as it pertains to his doctrine of sin. Tseng contends that, due to Barth’s view of human history as a fallen, sinful history, it must be presupposed in his mature doctrine of election, thereby giving it a “basically infralapsarian” stance. Tseng concludes the work by restating his core arguments in 10 succinct theses and then illustrates how Barth’s “basically infralapsarian” doctrine of election applies to other doctrines such as theodicy, public theology, and natural theology.

For those engaged in the world of Barth scholarship, this work may seem like another well-intended attempt to break through the impasse between the debates on Barth’s doctrine of election, into which the “traditionalists” and “revisionists” camps have ossified. However, this is not the case. Tseng has crafted a daring and challenging interpretation of the development of Barth’s doctrine of election that will command wide readership for anyone interested in the thorny doctrine of election/reprobation (i.e., predestination) in general, and specifically in Barth’s theology. Tseng handles the difficult and dense terminology of lapsarian debates of the 17th century and clearly situates Barth within the Reformed tradition with its concepts, categories, and clashes over this doctrine. Especially pleasing is Tseng’s deft handling of the primary source material as he traces Barth’s development from Romans through to his mature doctrine of reconciliation, Church Dogmatics. Moreover, even if Tseng does not fully convince the reader that Barth’s doctrine of election is “basically infralapsarian,” he has illuminated a severely neglected aspect of Barth’s doctrine of election. However, there are a few formal and material criticisms. Formally, Tseng should have discussed Church Dogmatics II/2, section 33, not in chapter 2 but in chapter 7 where he discussed that volume in greater detail. Further, Tseng could also have included discussions of sections 34-35 as well, as here is where Barth discusses the election of the community (i.e., Israel and the Church) and the individual (i.e., Christian or not) respectively. Materially, although Tseng makes a bold thesis regarding Barth’s doctrine of election as “basically infralapsarian,” he unfortunately reads Barth through the lenses of the 17th century lapsarian controversy and not reading him as a late 19th to mid-20th century theologian engaged in the lapsarian issues of those times. Further, Tseng places so much emphasis on fallen humanity as the object of election that he overlooks the fact that, for Barth, the object of election is first, foremost, and eternally Jesus Christ, and then all humanity in him. Also, individual humans are only temporally fallen, but eternally elected (i.e., redeemed) for Barth, thus, when Barth speaks of individual humans as objects elected in Christ they are eternally viewed as redeemed, not fallen, although their temporal fallenness is presupposed. Therefore, Barth’s doctrine of election is ultimately “basically supralapsarian” which includes necessary infralapsarian elements. These intra-Barth debates aside, Tseng has provided the academy with a worthy piece of scholarship that should continue the dialogue and debates over the doctrine of election/reprobation and Barth’s theology

Bradley M. Penner is Adjunct Professor of Theology at Briercrest College and Seminary.

Bradley Penner

Date Of Review:

March 4, 2019