In my previous blog post, I explained why I think that God truly wants to save everyone.

Yet the fact that the Bible says that God clearly wants to save everyone doesn't necessarily mean that God actually will save everyone.

But why not? If God truly loves everyone, and if God is all-powerful, then it seems like God should save everyone, right?

It seems like a nice thought, at first. But not only do I believe that the Bible warns again and again about the very real possibility of people being eternally destroyed, but I'm also convinced that the exact reason why God specifically won't save everyone is precisely because God is Love.

Now, that seems like a funny answer. In this post, I'll explain why actually, the most loving thing for God to do is to let people reject him if they want to, thus leading to their own eternal destruction.

Or in other words, I don't think that universalism is true, and I'm glad that it isn't. I hope by the end of this post, you'll also be glad that universalism isn't true.

And if universalism isn't true, but God still wants to save everyone—including people who have never heard about Jesus or the gospel—then it seems there are only two options remaining:

1. Some sort of religious pluralism that says all religions ultimately lead to the same God.
2. A theory of Christian inclusivism where somehow, sooner or later, everyone will get the chance to accept or reject the gospel.

I'll talk about these two options in upcoming blog posts. But before we get to those, I need to explain the problems that I see with universalism, and why I reject it.

The Argument for Universalism

Universalists believe that everyone will be saved, eventually. So this idea is called universalism, as in, the whole universe and every creature or person in it will one day be reconciled to God, and will live forever with God in the new heaven and new earth.

The most optimistic universalists would say that even Satan and his demons will finally change their minds, repent, and be reconciled with God.

Some universalists say this final reconciliation with God might happen for some people after they undergo some sort of experience like a temporary hell that is effectively a sort of purgatory.

For example, Thomas Talbott argues that, based on 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, everyone will eventually voluntarily submit their wills to God's will, although God allows people to temporarily rebel.1

As a result of this temporary rebellion, we suffer in this life from the misery that sin always causes, and we might also suffer in the afterlife. This is because, Talbott claims,

that is how God works with us as created rational agents. He permits us to chose in the ambiguous contexts in which we first emerge as self-aware beings, and he then requires us to learn from experience the hard lessons we sometimes need to learn. So in that way the consequences of our free choices, both the good choices and the bad ones, are a source of revelation; they sooner or later reveal—in the next life if not in this one—both the horror of separation from God and the bliss of union with him. And that is why the end is foreordained: all paths finally lead to the same destination, the end of reconciliation, though some are longer and a lot more painful than others.2

But as Jack W. Cottrell argues, this would mean that in the opinion of universalists like Talbott,

Salvation thus is a process of purification accomplished by the "consuming fire" of God's "purifying love," "when God finally perfects our love for others." This view falls far short of the biblical teaching of the cross as a work of redemption and propitiation (Romans 3:24-26).3

Basically, if we can get to heaven by having ourselves be purified of sin in hell/purgatory, then why did we need Jesus to die on the cross for our sins?

Additionally, in Talbott's view, as Cottrell points out, our free choices

affect the way we get to heaven, but "all paths finally lead to the same destination...though some are longer and a lot more painful than others." But if this is the case, we may legitimately question the nature of the "love" that Talbott says determines everything God does. If we are all destined for the same end, why does God give us just enough "freedom" to make the journey miserable?....[And why does God] subject some of his elect to an undefined, indeterminate post-mortem gauntlet before the end is finally achieved[?].4

So there are some theological problems with the concept of universalism right from the start, even for universalists like Talbott who try to allow for some amount of human free will in the process of universal salvation.

However, some Bible verses seem like they could endorse universalism. For example:

• Jesus "is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world" (1 John 2:2, NLT).
• Jesus is also called "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), by offering his own blood as the perfect payment for all sin (Hebrews 7:27 and 10:12-13).
• "Therefore just as one man’s [Adam's] trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s [Jesus Christ's] act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (Romans 5:18, NRSV). See also 1 Corinthians 1:30, 15:22, and Romans 11:32 for similar verses.
• "For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and through him God reconciled everything to himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ’s blood on the cross" (Colossians 1:19-20, NLT).
• "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19).
• Jesus is described as "The true light, which gives light to everyone" (John 1:9).
• Jesus said "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32).

Taken together, these verses could imply that if Jesus has died for everyone's sins, then everyone is forgiven, and Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, will eventually draw everyone into the light of his truth that they are now reconciled with God.

Universalists would likely read this sort of interpretation into Philippians 2:6-11, which says that Jesus,

Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NLT)

Another fancy theological name for universalism is apocatastasis, or 'universal reconciliation'. It is claimed that a few early Christian theologians argued for this idea, possibly including Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. I haven't read these theologians on this issue, so I won't comment directly on their theology.

But I have spent some time studying Karl Barth, who is an example of a famous Christian theologian who admitted to at least hoping for universalism, even if at times he warned against presuming upon it.5 Barth has also been called the "greatest Protestant theologian of the 20th century",6 and his modification to the Reformed doctrine of predestination has been very influential in Reformed circles of thought.

However, when I read Barth's understanding of predestination, it seems to imply universalism. Then, when I read sections of his Church Dogmatics volume 4.1, I'm convinced that Barth is outright arguing for universalism.

There are several other major scholars who also think that Barth leaned toward universalism, even if Barth might have made a few statements here and there that could make it appear like he denied it.7

Yet because Barth is very hard to read, right now, I'll only summarize what I interpret him to be saying. If you want to read my more detailed interpretation along with supporting quotations from Barth, then check out the Appendix at the bottom of this post.

What I believe Barth argued regarding predestination and universalism goes something like this:

1. God doesn't predestine individuals to heaven or hell. Instead, the only person who was predestined was Jesus, who was both elected by God to be the Messiah, and rejected by God when he died on the cross for everyone's sins.
2. Jesus really did die for everyone who has ever lived. Jesus also had faith in God on behalf of everyone. Therefore, everyone who has ever lived is already forgiven of their sins, and are in a right relationship with God.
3. The old, sinful, unbelieving people that everyone used to be are now effectively destroyed, so the only possible future that remains for everyone is to become people who believe in Jesus and live in a loving relationship with God and others.
4. The only difference between non-Christians and Christians are that Christians recognize what God has done for us, and we get to witness to God's grace and love to the rest of the world. We also get to enjoy the peace and joy that comes from knowing that God loves us and has reconciled us with himself, and we participate in the loving community of all other Christians (a.k.a, the Church).
5. But eventually, at some point in the future, God will reveal the truth of what Jesus has accomplished for everyone to everyone, and everyone will then believe in Jesus and love God.

Such an interpretation might even seem to be suggested in the Bible, when Paul writes:

And all of this is a gift from God, who brought us back to himself through Christ. And God has given us this task of reconciling people to him. For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, "Come back to God!" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20, NLT).

What I don't understand in Barth's theory, though—maybe because I haven't come across the section where he talked about it—is why then God bothers prolonging human history and all the misery that unbelief and sin cause in this world, when God could simply reveal to everyone the truth about themselves, and bring everyone to faith?

Or in other words, what did Barth think God is waiting for? Why wouldn't God just turn everyone on the planet into Christians right now, and then continue history without all the sin and the suffering that sin causes?

Furthermore, there are two major problems with Barth's theory, which are also the same problems with any theory of universalism—even those that claim to allow for some amount of human free will.

Problem 1: The Bible Says Not Everyone Will Be Saved

As I've talked about elsewhere, Jonathan Edwards' theology could actually have fit quite nicely with a theory of universalism.

As a short recap, Edwards said that God created the world so that people could know God and love God, and knowing God and loving God makes people truly happy and holy and glorifies God, which makes God happy.8

Therefore, Edwards said that heaven will be a world of love between God, angels, and those people that God eternally chose to save. These 'elect' individuals will rejoice in God and be truly happy, and they will also rejoice over anyone else who is also holy and happy.9

Edwards also affirmed that God has the ability to save whoever God wants to, because God can simply choose to give any individual the Holy Spirit, which will illuminate this person's mind and cause him or her to love God and believe the gospel.10

Therefore, it seems that logically, Edwards should have said that, in order to maximize God's glory and the eternal happiness of the elect in heaven, God should save everyone.

However, Edwards was convinced by his reading of Scripture that the majority of people throughout history will end up in hell. This forced him to explain why God would predestine only a small number of people to heaven while everyone else is predestined to hell (a.k.a, double predestination).

But when Edwards tried fit double predestination into the rest of his theological system, it led to a number of major problems and contradictions. I explored and analyzed these issues in my dissertation, which you can download for free as a .pdf by clicking here.

Yet I would agree with Edwards that the Bible says quite clearly that not everyone is going to be eternally saved. There are far too many warnings about eternal death/destruction/annihilation throughout Scripture for me to think that it is only a theoretical possibility that won't actually happen for at least some people.

Furthermore, God even told his prophets that at least some people will be eternally destroyed:

Isaiah says that in the new heavens and new earth, everyone will worship God (Isaiah 66:23). But these people will also be able to go out and look on the dead bodies of other people who were eternally destroyed for rebelling against God (Isaiah 66:24).

The book of Revelation also contains a prophecy that after the final judgment, everyone whose name isn't written in God's Book of Life will be thrown into the lake of fire and eternally destroyed (Revelation 20:12-15).

Now, this verse doesn't clearly specify an exact number of people that this will happen to, and I am hopeful that that number will be small. But I don't think it's zero, since we know that at least Satan, his demons, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet all end up being condemned to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10). So are those who take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 14:9-11).

I also deny that Satan or the demons will ever be reconciled with God, because they are not human and so Christ did not die for their sins, as I talk about in this post here. Jesus even said that the lake of fire/eternal destruction is the final destiny for Satan and his fallen angels (Matthew 25:41).

Therefore, I think even this small sample of verses is clear enough to show that not everyone will finally be redeemed and reconciled to God. That in itself should be enough to disprove universalism.

I also think these verses are enough to disprove the idea that God will eternally extend the offer of repenting and coming to heaven to people who are in hell, as suggested in in C.S. Lewis's story The Great Divorce.11

Thus, although I appreciate Lewis's story as an interesting theological thought-experiment, due to how it explores a number of possibilities for why people might reject God's mercy, I would caution that Christians shouldn't take it as a literal description of how the afterlife actually operates.

Problem 2: Love Can't Be Forced

What I find interesting is that universalism and double predestination actually share the same problem: irresistible grace.

Irresistible grace is the idea that God, through the Holy Spirit, can work in a person's heart so effectively that a person is guaranteed to believe in Jesus and be saved. The only difference between double predestination and universalism is the number of people that God decides to give this irresistible grace to.

Karl Barth clearly endorsed the idea of irresistible grace when he wrote, "He [God] proves Himself to be the stronger by the irresistible awakening power of His Holy Spirit. In the strength and in this proof he calls them [sinners] to faith".12

And if everyone will be brought to faith by the irresistible power of the Holy Spirit, then Barth said that the Holy Spirit will also irresistibly cause everyone to love God, because faith is always inseparable from love for God.13

So basically, the only freedom that Barth said anyone has, is the freedom to eventually choose "what has already been chosen and actualized for him [or her]" by God, which is to believe in Jesus, obey God, and love God.14

However, this is precisely the biggest problem with universalism, because universalists deny that people have the possibility to ultimately reject God.

Universalists argue that although people might fight it for a time, God effectively says to everyone: "You will love me. You have no choice. I've chosen for you. Resistance is futile—you will be assimilated."

(Oops, sorry, some Star Trek crept into my theology there).

But if love can be forced, is it really love? C.S. Lewis famously wrote:

Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.15

For example, let's imagine if a scientist were able to covertly insert a microchip into the brain of a man who she had a crush on, which allowed the scientist to make the man act in a loving way towards the scientist. Even if the microchip made the man feel like he was voluntarily loving the scientist, he would not actually be doing so, for he is fully controlled by the scientist. In effect, the scientist would simply be loving herself by manipulating the man like a puppet, and the man’s love for the scientist would not be genuine.16

So we can see why, at worst, and in line with Lewis's quote above, at least one theologian has compared the idea of irresistible grace to divine rape. Yet, "God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!"17

Again, C.S. Lewis puts it nicely:

The Irresistible and Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.18

Thus, because we need the ability to say 'no' to God in order to protect God's truly loving character, I also reject the idea that God's glory is so amazing or beautiful that everyone who truly sees it will be compelled to 'freely' love God. After all, Satan had a full view of God's glory, and Satan still rebelled, and managed to convince a third of the angels to rebel also (Revelation 12:1-5).

So as strange as it might seem, God must give us the freedom that we can actually say no to him in the end, if we so choose. This is even though God knows that some people that he loves so much that he would die for them will exercise their freedom to reject him, and so they will finally be eternally destroyed. Because having the ability to freely say no to God's love is necessary for the genuine love of God to be a possibility.

This idea is also supported by Scripture, because Jesus also says that no matter how much he wants to draw people to himself, people are free to resist his desires for them (Matthew 23:37, Luke 7:30, Luke 13:34, Acts 7:51, and the parable of the wedding in Matthew 22:1-14).

So while it's alright to hope that many or even most people will finally be persuaded and wooed by God's love, God absolutely can't force anyone to love him. Therefore, I must agree with C.S. Lewis once again:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in hell, choose it.19

Conclusion

However, you might still be wondering about all those verses I listed near the beginning of this post. If Jesus really did die for everyone, then shouldn't that mean that everyone will be saved?

I'll have to write more about how I interpret these verses in a future post. But at this point, I believe I've been able to plausibly argue two main points:

1. It's not true that Jesus only died for a specific group of people—either those that God predestined to be saved, or those that God perfectly foreknew will be saved. This is because I reject double predestination and exclusivism, since these positions are incompatible with the idea that God actually wants to save everyone.

2. I've also shown in this post why I can't believe that any theory of double predestination or universalism is true, because the idea that God's grace is irresistible is incompatible with God's desire for people to freely love him, and the Bible seems to clearly say that not everyone will be saved.

These two points mean that however I interpret the verses at the start of this post, I have to say that at the very least, they mean that Jesus's death was enough (in theory) to atone for the sins of every single person who has ever lived, but that not everyone will actually choose to take Jesus up on his offer to believe in him to have eternal life.

So if both exclusivism and universalism are eliminated, then it comes down to the choice between religious pluralism and inclusivism.

In my next post, I'll aim to show why I don't think pluralism is the best option, and so that means we need some sort of Biblically-supported theory of Christian inclusivism.

Appendix: Support For My Interpretation of Karl Barth

A Disclaimer About Interpreting Karl Barth

At the start, I need to give a disclaimer: interpreting Karl Barth is a rather difficult task.

He wrote in German, which was translated by others into English, which adds a layer of potential misunderstanding for people who aren't reading his original words in German. His major work Church Dogmatics is also extremely long, at over nine thousand pages and six million words, split into thirteen different books, and it was still unfinished when he died.20

On top of this, Barth's writing style is notoriously difficult to read. This is partly due to his love of long sentences, but it's also because:

Barth tends to argue in a somewhat circular manner. He takes an idea, text, or question. He offers a proposal. He chews on it, unpacks it, argues it. He considers objections and counterproposals. He then circles back round to the proposal, extending it somewhat. Again he wrestles, re-engages, reconceptualizes. Over and over he extends his initial statement until he has come finally at the issue from every side. Thus Barth cannot be interpreted as if he writes in strictly linear fashion.21

Additionally,

Rather than a strict logic that moves from point A to point B and then a conclusion, Barth believed deeper truth always stood in a dialectic. One example: Jesus is God and man. Another: God is both judge and savior. These truths are not easily reconciled but are better understood as existing in some tension. Barth used this method fruitfully to explore many mysteries of the Christian faith.22

Thus, it's recommended to read Barth in long sections to get the gist of what he argued, and to compare what he said in one place with what he wrote elsewhere.

Unfortunately, many people don't have the time or patience to read everything that Barth wrote, and I admit, I'm one of them. I also think that, given the volume of his writings, it's not unexpected that there would likely be some contradictions here and there.

In fact,

There is a very famous story — I don’t know if it is apocryphal or not — in which somebody wrote to Barth and said: Professor Barth, I have discovered the following contradictions in your writings, what do you say about these contradictions? And Barth ostensibly wrote back and said: Well, here are some others. And lists a few more contradictions. Yours faithfully.23

So it's hard to know what Barth actually thought about some things, or if he even fully knew what he thought about some things! This keeps scholars busy interpreting his writings and arguing with other scholars about what Barth really meant.

Personally, I'd prefer to invest my limited time in studying and interpreting God's inerrant words that are found in the Bible, rather than studying a fallible human expert like Barth who didn't appear to put logical consistency high on his list of priorities.

However, I did read enough of Barth's work for my doctoral comprehensive exams that I think I get what Barth is trying to say, at least on this topic. So I don't think my interpretation of his theology is unwarranted, and as I noted earlier (see footnote 7), there are other very well-respected scholars who also think Barth was arguing for universalism.

Also, I just wanted to briefly note that in the quotations I'll use from Barth, the terms "man" and "men" generally refer to each individual person and all humanity, respectively.

Karl Barth's Modification of the Doctrine of Predestination

Barth is quite famous for his rejection of the traditional scheme of double predestination, and I do appreciate Barth's criticisms of it.

If you're not familiar with it, the traditional doctrine of double predestination teaches that before God created anything, God chose (or "elected") that only some people ("the elect") would end up having eternal life in heaven, while most people would be condemned for their sins and eternally destroyed in hell.

In this view, people don't have any free will to change their eternal destinies, and the purpose of sending most people to hell is so that God's justice and wrath are demonstrated and can be eternally praised by God's elect people.

I've talked more about this view in my blog posts here, here, and here in relation to Jonathan Edwards' view of predestination, which I studied for my dissertation.

Barth argued that the traditional doctrine of double predestination (as put forth by Jonathan Edwards and others) ends up being a "mixed message of joy and terror, salvation and damnation".24

Therefore, double predestination has very negative consequences for God's character. If predestination is interpreted as God saying Yes to some people but No to others, then,

it will be hard to distinguish His [God's] freedom from caprice or His mystery from the blindness of such caprice. It will be no less hard to maintain His righteousness in any form except that of mere assertion. It will then be difficult to make it clear that God is not merely a tyrant living by His whims, that He is not merely blind fate, that He is something other than the essential inscrutability of all being.25

Basically, Barth thought that proponents of double predestination depict God as an arbitrary tyrant who says Yes to some people, but No to others, for no clear reason. But then these proponents claim that God is still righteous and just when God predestines people to hell, even though the people who are predestined to end up there can't do anything to avoid it.

The problem is that if God does say both Yes and No to different groups of humanity, then "the No should become much the stronger and ultimately the exclusive note," which is the opposite of the gospel, and so Barth said this idea "should be repudiated with horror".26 I totally agree.

Barth also believed that the traditional interpretation of predestination was un-Biblical.

For example, as Roger E. Olson notes,

In light of New Testament passages such as John 1:9, 1:29, 3:17, 8:12, 9:5, 11:9, and 12:46, [Barth said] 'We cannot follow the classical [Reformed] doctrine and make the open number of those who are elect in Jesus Christ into a closed number to which all other men are opposed as if they were rejected. Such an assumption is shattered by the unity of the real and revealed will of God in Jesus Christ'.27

As an alternative, Barth said that the doctrine of predestination must be put forth in a way that the grace of God stands out as the entire message, or else predestination should not be preached. Thus, Barth argued that "we must not seek the ground of this election anywhere but in the love of God".28

Barth is well known for how he put forth a revised doctrine of double predestination which portrays Jesus as simultaneously both elected by God (to be the Messiah) and rejected by God (by going to the cross to die for humanity's sin), which Barth argued for on the basis of Scripture.29

Thus, Barth said that God’s loving election/predestination of Jesus to be the savior of the world is the gospel:

He [God] is for this man Jesus, and in Him for the whole race, and therefore for the world. That God wills neither to be without the world nor against it can never be stated more clearly or forcibly than when we speak of His election. At bottom, then, to speak of the election means necessarily to speak of the Gospel.30

I admit that his approach is a huge improvement over the traditional view of double predestination, and many Reformed Christians find Barth's approach quite attractive.

However, Barth’s view of predestination has been criticized as leading to universalism.

I'll summarize why I think Barth is arguing for universalism the next section, and then I'll explain why I think the problem with Barth's theory of universalism demonstrates the problem with universalism in general.

Barth's Theology of Predestination Implies Universalism

Given the difficulties noted earlier in interpreting Barth, some scholars claim that it is not entirely clear whether in Barth’s view, all humanity is therefore elect "in Christ," which could imply universalism, or whether at other times Barth argued for "conditional election whereby humans are elect-in-Christ until or unless they opt out of this elect status".31

If the latter is all that Barth argued, then I think this idea has a lot of potential, and I've argued for something similar here.

Elsewhere, Barth argued that after the election of Christ, it was the community of Israel and the Church who are elect "in Christ," instead of individual believers. Individual believers are elect only by inclusion in this elect community, whether in some sort of opt-in or opt-out fashion.32

If so, this would also be something I could go along with.

However, when I read what Barth writes in his Church Dogmatics volume 4.1, I'm convinced that Barth is making a case for deterministic universalism, which means that no one will ultimately be able to opt-out of experiencing eternal life with God. And that's a major problem.

For example, Barth said that "in Jesus Christ God has demonstrated... that He loves the world, that He did not will to be God without it, without all men, without each individual man in particular".33

As a result, Barth frequently speaks about the "necessity" of faith, and not just in the sense that having faith in Jesus Christ is necessary if we want to have eternal life, which is what the Bible teaches.

Instead, Barth seems to imply that everyone will necessarily come to faith in Jesus as their savior, and thus, there is no possibility that anyone will not have faith in Jesus:

It is not for man to choose first whether he himself will decide (what an illusion!) for faith or for unbelief. Faith makes the solid actuality of unbelief an impossibility. It sweeps it away. It replaces it by itself. It does not build a bridge over the gulf. It closes it. It has already closed it. This takes place in the necessity of faith in the strength of which the only act which remains for a man is the genuinely free act of faith.34

So if the decision to have faith in Jesus isn't up to individual people to decide, then who does make this decision?

But this necessity of faith does not lie in man. It does not lie even in the good nature of man as created for God, let alone in his being as the sinner who in denial and perversion of his good nature has turned away from God and in so doing deprived himself already of the possibility of faith It does not even lie in faith in itself and as such. It is to be found rather in the object of faith. It is this object which forces itself necessarily on man and is in that way the basis of his faith. This object is the living Lord Jesus Christ, in whom it took place, in whom it has taken place for every man, in whom it confronts man as an absolutely superior actuality, that his sin, and he himself as the actual sinner he is, and with his sin the possibility of his unbelief, is rejected, destroyed and set aside, that he is born again as a new man of obedience, who now has the freedom for faith, and only in that faith his future. In this destroying and renewing of man as it took place in Jesus Christ there consists the necessity of faith, because beyond this destroying and renewing there remains for sinful man only faith in the One in whom it has taken place. In the death of Jesus Christ both the destroying and the renewing have been revealed as valid for all men in His resurrection from the dead. Therefore, objectively, really, ontologically, there is a necessity of faith for them all.35

In summary, Barth argues that Jesus has effectively had faith in God on behalf each and every individual person. This means that the possibility of unbelief has been destroyed, and all people are now born again as new people who only have the freedom to believe in Christ and obey God. The old, unbelieving, sinful person has effectively been destroyed and renewed, just as Jesus died and was resurrected on the sinner's behalf.

So because of Jesus's death for all people, it is now impossible for any person to choose to not come to faith.

And this is not a one-off statement by Barth, either. According to another shorter summary of the same idea, Barth argues that God has acted "without us and against us and for us," such that

what He [God] has done is not just something which applies to us and is intended for us, a proffered opportunity and possibility. In it He has actually taken us, embraced us, as it were surrounded us, seized us from behind and turned us back again to Himself.36

Basically, God has decided that everyone has been reconciled to God, and God has turned everyone back to a right relationship with God, whether they recognize it or not, whether they choose it or not, and whether they even currently want it or not. Their old selves who rejected God or were hostile to God are effectively destroyed as much as if they were annihilated:

In and with the man who [died on the cross and] was taken down dead on Golgotha [i.e., Jesus], man the covenant-breaker [i.e., the sinner] is buried and destroyed. He has ceased to be. The wrath of God which is the fire of His love has taken him [i.e. the sinner] away and all his transgressions and offences and errors and follies and lies and faults and crimes against God and his fellowmen and himself, just as a whole burnt offering is consumed on the altar with the flesh and skin and bones and hoofs and horns, rising up as fire to heaven and disappearing. That is how God has dealt with the man who broke covenant with Himself.37

So since all people have died with Christ and been destroyed, then

the existence of man as a sinner and all his transgressions are now behind him. Whatever else he may be, he will no longer be this man, the transgressor.... The being of the new man reconciled with God in Jesus Christ is one in which man has no more future as sinful man.38

But then, why doesn't everyone currently believe in Jesus? Barth says it's not because they aren't justified or sanctified by God, because Barth claims:

Jesus Christ was born and died and rose again for all. The work of atonement, the conversion of man to God, was done for all. The Word of God is spoken to all. God’s verdict and direction and promise have been pronounced over all. To that extent, objectively, all are justified, sanctified, and called [by God].39

In this above quotation Barth is alluding to Romans 8:30. So it seems to Barth that the reason everyone isn't currently a Christian is only because they lack awareness of what God has done for them, and so they can't confess the gospel or be obedient to the Holy Spirit:

It is not that they lack Jesus Christ and in Him the being of man reconciled to God. What they lack is obedience to his Holy Spirit, eyes and ears and hearts which are open to Him, experience and knowledge of the conversion of man to God which took place in Him, the new direction which must correspond to the new being given to them in Him, life in and with His community, a part in its ministry, the confession of Him and witness to Him as its Lord and as the Head of all men. For that reason the being of man reconciled to God in Jesus Christ is not—yet—reflected in them.40

Although in the meantime a person "can still rebel and lie and fear, but only in conflict, in impotent conflict, with his most proper being".41

But if so, then what benefit does Barth think it is to be a Christian?

[Christians] have over the rest of the world the one inestimable advantage that God the Reconciler and the event of reconciliation can be to them a matter of recognition and confession, until the day when He and it will be the subject of His revelation to all eyes and ears and hearts, and therefore of the recognition and confession of all men.42

So it seems Barth thinks that at some point, God will reveal the truth to all people that they are already justified, sanctified, called, and reconciled to God.

Yet right now,

[Christians exist] as examples, as the representatives and predecessors of all other men, of whom so long as their ears and eyes and hearts are not opened we can only say definitely that the same being in Jesus Christ is granted to them and belongs to them in Him. But Christians know and can declare what it is that belongs to them and all other men in Jesus Christ. And by the existence of the Christian we can make this clear. The being of man reconciled with God in Jesus Christ is reflected in the existence of the Christian. That is something we cannot say of others.43

Therefore, in my reading of Barth, it seems the only difference he sees between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians recognize what God has done for us, and so we get the benefit of experiencing God's love, joy, peace, and so forth in our lives now. We also have the privilege of serving God as ambassadors to share this good news with others who don't know it yet (2 Corinthians 5:20).

I could have chosen to reference dozens more quotes from Barth that say basically the same things as these ones, because he repeats these ideas over and over in different ways throughout his Church Dogmatics 4.1 §58. These are just some of the clearest and most concise examples that I found while reading for my comprehensive exams.

So as much as some fans of Barth might want to deny that Barth wasn't a universalist, I can't read Barth's doctrine of predestination and this very long section of his Church Dogmatics and not come to the conclusion that Barth was arguing for universalism. I don't think it's the case that myself or the other scholars who think likewise are only misinterpreting one or two unclear sentences of his.

Footnotes:

• 1. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 252-254.
• 2. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 258-260, quote from 259.
• 3. Jack. W. Cottrell, "Response to Thomas B. Talbott" in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 276-277.
• 4. Jack. W. Cottrell, "Response to Thomas B. Talbott" in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 277.
• 5. Wyatt Houtz, "Karl Barth’s Rejection of Universalism," The PostBarthian, August 8, 2018.
• 6. Mark Galli, "What to Make of Karl Barth's Steadfast Adultery," Christianity Today, October 20, 2017.
• 7. Some of the scholars who argue that Barth's doctrine of election implies universalism include Paul K. Jewett, Election and Predestination (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 51-54; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 97; Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th ed. (Hoboken: Wiley, 2016), 348–349, citing Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics, Vol. 1, trans. Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), 346–351.
• 8. Jonathan Edwards, "Dissertation 1: Concerning the End for Which God Created the World", The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 443 and 533–536.
• 9. Jonathan Edwards, "Heaven Is A World of Love", The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 366-397.
• 10. Jonathan Edwards, "A Divine and Supernatural Light", The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 17, ed. Mark Valeri (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 408-425.
• 11. C.S. Lewis, “The Great Divorce,” in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 498-506.
• 12. "He [God] proves Himself to be the stronger by the irresistible awakening power of His Holy Spirit. In the strength and in this proof he calls them [sinners] to faith. And in so doing He creates the presupposition on the basis of which the sinful man can and actually does believe.... When it is this One who closes the circle around him, a man can and must do that which he does in faith." Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §63 section 1, 752-753.
• 13. "The obedience of faith is followed by the obedience of love — in practice, of course, it may sometimes precede, but it always accompanies it as a second form of the particular being of the Christian in Jesus Christ, which cannot be separated from the first but is quite distinct from it." Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 102.
• 14. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 100.
• 15. C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 48. Clark Pinnock said something similar: "God desires us to reciprocate his love and gives us freedom to make this possible. But with free will comes the possibility that humans may fail to receive God's grace but instead reject it. Because love cannot be forced, it is possible that some will reject it—even ultimately and finally." (Clark Pinnock, "Response to Thomas B. Talbott," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 261.)
• 16. Gregory A. Boyd, "God Limits His Control," in Four Views on Divine Providence, eds. Stanley N.Gundry and Dennis W. Jowers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 188-189.
• 17. Norman Geisler, "God Knows All Things," in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1986), 69.
• 18. C.S. Lewis. "The Screwtape Letters," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), letter 8, 207.
• 19. C.S. Lewis, "The Great Divorce," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 506.
• 20. R. Michael Allen, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 9.
• 21. R. Michael Allen, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 10.
• 22. Mark Galli, "What to Make of Karl Barth's Steadfast Adultery," Christianity Today, October 20, 2017.
• 23. Justin Taylor, "What Should Evangelicals Make of Karl Barth?", The Gospel Coalition, February 22, 2016. Taylor attributes this quote to D.A. Carson. Another source also appears to validate this story.
• 24. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1957), 13.
• 25. Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, 25.
• 26. Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, 18.
• 27. Roger E. Olson, "Was Karl Barth a Universalist? A New Look at an Old Question", Patheos.com, March 10, 2013. He cites several passages from Barth's Church Dogmatics 2.2, and this quote is from p.422, but Olson doesn't provide the publication info of the particular edition he was using.
• 28. Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, 18, 25.
• 29. R. Michael Allen, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 71.
• 30. Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, 26.
• 31. Oliver D. Crisp, "The Election of Jesus Christ," Journal of Reformed Theology 2, no. 2 (2008): 148.
• 32. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979) 91.
• 33. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 2004), §58, section 2, 103.
• 34. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §63 section 1, 746.
• 35. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §63 section 1, 747. See also page 748, where he says again, "And it is the awakening power of the Holy Spirit that this impossibility as such and this necessity as such so confront a man and illuminate him that he does the only objective, real and ontological thing which he can do, not omitting or suppressing or withholding but necessarily speaking the Yes of the free act which corresponds to it, choosing that for which he is already chosen by the divine decision, and beside which he has no other choice, that is to say, faith."
• 36. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 1, 88-89.
• 37. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 94. Thomas Talbott argues something similar when he says, in reference to Romans 9:22-23, that "a vessel of wrath just is the old person, even as a vessel of mercy just is the new creation in Christ....just as a new creation in Christ requires the absolute destruction of the old person, so every vessel of mercy represents the absolute destruction of some vessel of wrath."(Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 245.)
• 38. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 94.
• 39. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 4, 148. See also page 101 where he cites 1 Corinthians 1:30 as support for this idea that all people are justified and sanctified in Christ.
• 40. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 92-93.
• 41. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 1, 91.
• 42. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 4, 149.
• 43. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 92-93.