arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
From what little I have been reading, I am trying to wrap my head around the objections to the traditional Calvinist doctrine of election from Barth, Torrance, et al? I understand them to believe that Christ is both the elect and reprobate. If so what's the point?
Aside from some superficial laments that resemble Arminianism, I am not sure what they mean when they claim that election and salvation are not Christocentric or tied to Christology enough.
It strikes me as similar to the objective/subjective debate of 'pistis Christou' language in Paul where it is argued that if the subject isn't Christ then he isn't honored enough and you get an anthropocentric view of salvation. It is seems as though Christ in both objections is seen only as more honored only at the level of the sentence and syntax.
Thoughts?
Aside from some superficial laments that resemble Arminianism, I am not sure what they mean when they claim that election and salvation are not Christocentric or tied to Christology enough.
It strikes me as similar to the objective/subjective debate of 'pistis Christou' language in Paul where it is argued that if the subject isn't Christ then he isn't honored enough and you get an anthropocentric view of salvation. It is seems as though Christ in both objections is seen only as more honored only at the level of the sentence and syntax.
Thoughts?
Last edited: