Karl Barth, an annihilationist? A recent Twitter "conference"
Karl #Barth an annihilationist? "In eternity when we see God face to face, either we will be those who love, or we will not be" CD 1.2, 372
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
Our dedicated Senior Contributing Author, Scott Jackson, took note almost immediately:
Hmm. Got a keep a closer eye on Barth's eschatology. https://t.co/RR0ncWiEGj
— J. Scott Jackson (@jsjackson15) August 20, 2015
And then things really got going. Enjoy this recap!
@WTravisMcMaken Isn't Barth just saying we either will or will not love in eternity? The second "be" implies "those who love."
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon That's definitely possible. I haven't looked at the KD.
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken @dwcongdon Yeah, FB fiddling aside, "Do I have the German of that here?" was my first instinct.
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@MatthewAFrost @WTravisMcMaken I already checked the KD. It's actually a mostly literal translation. But the "be" refers to "love."
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken "Er wird im ewigen Leben, wo er Gott von Angesicht zu Angesicht schauen wird, ein Liebender sein, oder er wird nicht sein."
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost Nicely done.
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken I see the parallel, "[oder] er wird [nicht] ein Liebender sein," but if this is the intention...
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken ... how is the life of the world to come, in eternal life, face to face with God, any different than here & now?
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken We will still be able to choose unfaith, and so unlove, in the world to come, as the redeemed?
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@MatthewAFrost @WTravisMcMaken Remember this is the Barth of 1.2. He doesn't become universalist for a few more years.
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost We need to think in terms of his earlier, more existential (if I may) account of predestination as well: cf GD
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken @MatthewAFrost Exactly.
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@MatthewAFrost @WTravisMcMaken As I see it, his early eschatology is basically the eternalization of what we encounter in time.
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken I'm not even asking about who gets redeemed; I'm not so clear that "oder er wird nich sein" takes ein Liebender.
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@MatthewAFrost @WTravisMcMaken Let's ask a German native then. But I am confident it does.
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken Well, then I'm asking how, in the life of the world to come posited here, being/not being a lover is an option.
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@MatthewAFrost @WTravisMcMaken Well, if you're not one who loves, then presumably you are separated from God. In hell perhaps.
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@MatthewAFrost @WTravisMcMaken The statement could be consistent with annihilationism, but it does not indicate one way or the other.
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost So there's a chance my reflex was accurate! ;-P
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken But then you aren't face to face with God... unless the encapsulated bits only apply to the positive half.
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@MatthewAFrost @WTravisMcMaken There is a long tradition of reading the face to face in terms of standing before the judgment seat.
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken Which would seem to be unwarranted by the passage context. Surely that isn't the only moment of face-to-face...
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken ... but then I read it again, and it seems possible. The magic of too little text and too much tradition!
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@MatthewAFrost @WTravisMcMaken Barth is simply saying that when we see God face to face, we will either be those who love or not.
— David Congdon (@dwcongdon) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @WTravisMcMaken If it were only that; but context is "in eternal life," not simply im Ewigkeit. Seems posterior to judgment.
— Matthew Frost (@MatthewAFrost) August 20, 2015
@dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost @HHubchen Hey Guntzel, we need a native speaker's perspective on some German. Feel like taking a look?
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken You seem to quite confident that I have a KD at home (which I have indeed), but I can't find the @dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost
— Güntzel Schmidt (@HHubchen) August 20, 2015
@HHubchen "Er wird im ewigen Leben, wo er Gott von Angesicht zu Angesicht schauen wird, ein Liebender sein, oder er wird nicht sein."
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@HHubchen @dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost We're curious if you think "oder er wird nich sein" takes "ein Liebender" as referent.
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken > I think attention lies on love as the form in which the relationship b/tw believer and god > @dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost
— Güntzel Schmidt (@HHubchen) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken takes place. W/out love this relation doesn't exist, so his conclusion is that the form of > @dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost
— Güntzel Schmidt (@HHubchen) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken being in the world to come would also be that of a lover, or there would be no "being" @dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost
— Güntzel Schmidt (@HHubchen) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken it's not an ontological statement abt the future being but a characteristic of belief as love @dwcongdon @MatthewAFrost
— Güntzel Schmidt (@HHubchen) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken I fear I didn't explain myself too well, so I tried to make my point more clear on my blog: https://t.co/fv4pJApZxb
— Güntzel Schmidt (@HHubchen) August 20, 2015
@HHubchen "Barth isn’t joining in speculations about eternity and redemption, but tries to make sense of the statements of the Bible."
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@HHubchen Are those things so different? ;-)
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 20, 2015
@WTravisMcMaken w/out being quirky: I think that's the sticky point! (OK, I guess I'll have to explain in another blogpost, but not now ;-))
— Güntzel Schmidt (@HHubchen) August 20, 2015
@HHubchen Let us know when you write the next installment!
— W. Travis McMaken (@WTravisMcMaken) August 21, 2015
PostBarthian summed things up appropriately:
Epic twitter discussion following this tweet! https://t.co/UmUSBGG8Uv
— PostBarthian (@postbarthian) August 21, 2015
==================================
Follow @WTravisMcMaken
Comments