How is this view different from Karl Barths doctrine of election?
Some critics have tried to link this view of covenant and election to neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth. Actually, this view is radically different from Barths construction. Barths understanding of election is, quite frankly, bizarre and extremely difficult to grasp. Barth believes every person to be simultaneously elect and reprobate in Christ. And yet, it is hard to see what reprobation means in such a scheme, since he edges towards universalism at every step. While there is much to appreciate about his Christo-centric approach to election, his view remains highly abstract and a-historical. We are proposing nothing of the sort. Our view is rooted firmly in history as the outworking of Gods eternal purpose. Following Calvin, we hold to a Christo-centric view of election, but the similarities to Barth are only surface level. That is, we claim election comes to be known in and through union with Christ, but in a different fashion than Barth, whose view borders on Gnosticism. Only those
