Originally Posted by Craig

I haven't read any Barth in about 10 years...so I don't trust my recollection much. If I remember correctly, he was in love with an incarnational God...not because the Eternal is united to a human nature, rather, the Eternal *became* finite.

Also, he had a different view of inspiration than an orthodox believer would hold...the word "becomes" revelation to us as we read the word...which is not revelation in itself.

I've read that Cornelius Van Til was the first theologian to sound the alarm on Barth, and I came across this audio link (I don't know if it's good, nor if it's still up...I'm at work with no sound).

This pdf looks really interesting...it was delivered by Mark DeVine, of Southern Baptist Seminary, at the annual Evangelical Theological Society in 2001.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

KB was one of the fathers, perhaps the most generally influential, of the "neo-orthodox."

That movement was a reaction against liberalism, however, while it crossed the stream of old orthodoxy (picking up language, ideas), it showed its modernism by rejecting the idea of "walking the old paths". As a movement, it insisted on carving out a new direction.

KB is immensely influential, often sounds orthodox, quotes a lot of Scripture, believes absolutely contradictory things about revelation may still be true, flirted with universalism, was Christo-monistic, to name a few things.

Not a safe guide. But you still might want to know about him. Besides reading the man himself (if you cared), you can read a few of the critiques of him by more orthodox writers.