Election and God

Traditional Reformed dogmaticians place the decree of election in the doctrine of God. So does Barth. But they do it very differently.

The difference, if I might be allowed a simplistic caricature, is in the question of whether election is a determination of creation or also a determination of the Creator. For traditional dogmatics (especially of a supralapsarian variety), election and reprobation constituted God’s primal decision concerning the destiny of created beings. There was no “reflex” back on God, such that God determined Himself to be God in a particular way. God is the dread sovereign; election is His sovereign choice; once the decision has been made, God remains dread sovereign. Implicitly, He has committed Himself to work out election and reprobation in history, but that point is left implicit.

Barth brings it to the forefront. Election is a determination above all of God. God is no less sovereignty in Barth’s doctrine, but Barth emphasizes that in election God determines Himself, commits Himself, to be God-for-us, God-for-creation, the God who saves and judges. God’s decree is no less fixed in Barth than in earlier dogmatics, but the fixity doesn’t come from a static script for history but rather from God’s relentless commitment to the decision He made before the foundation of the world; the decree will out, because God has determined Himself to be the God who will ensure that the decree will out.

It is difficult to speak of this, but perhaps we can say that God’s “place” in relation to the world is conceived differently. For traditional dogmatics, God appears as a sovereign who decides from a distance. In Barth, election has the feel and form of incarnation: God is sovereign in the fact that He commits Himself before the foundation of the world to bring His purposes to pass. For traditional dogmatics, God plans to move but remains unmoved in His deciding; for Barth, election is not only a decision to move at some time in the future, but is God’s own movement.