Tim,

You need to consider the environment in which KB emerged. Liberalism reigned in Continental scholarship. Barth took his theological studies under Harnack's disciple Wilhelm Herrmann. When Barth had his epiphany about the emptiness of liberalism and wrote his Der Römerbrief, it was like someone set off a bomb in theological circles.

Barth's method of dialectical theology may be popular because it tries to forge a middle ground between polarities. Insofar as he lifts up antithetical propositions and is comfortable with paradox and mystery, he seems to give non-fundamentalists a way in which they can claim to be in the orthodox mainstream while not becoming fundys. And, inasmuch as he denied the liberal obsessions with immanence, his writing was a refreshing change stressing the sovereignty of God.

For me, the three issues keeping me from being a Barthian are . . .

1. His problematic view of history (Geschichte vs. Historie).
2. His denial of inerrancy and "propositional revelation."
3. His implicit (albeit never fully admitted) universalism.

Remember, Tim, in academic circles there are precious few defenders of scholastic Protestantism. Guys like Turretin (and Hodge and Warfield for that matter), were treated like the bad guys when I was in seminary. Carl F.H. Henry (despite the role he played in the early history of my alma mater), Francis Schaeffer, and the Princetonians were all treated with the greatest disregard and dismissal by some of my sys theo profs. One of them even used the "facts" of Schaeffer's bio as the basis for a case study where students were encouraged to ridicule old Francis.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?