Thread: Karl Barth?

Can anyone tell me what the deal is with Karl Barth?

Was he Reformed?

Is his work worth reading?

I think he had an issue with the inerrancy of scripture?

Is his view on Election correct?

Thanks

Steve

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.

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.

Reverend Buchanan (or anyone else) would you explain what Christo-monistic means? Is that the same as Sabellianism which the Jesus Only Movement teaches?

Thanks

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.

Barth is the big dog for mainline evangelicals. Take that for what it means.

He has some good things to say: he stood up to the Nazis and radical Liberals and he stood for the basics of our faith. He compromises/muddies the doctrines of Scripture and election. He taught that the Bible is not God's Word, as Jesus was. He also taught that inerrancy was for fools and that historical criticism is valid. He also was fond of overly long-winded sentences that are almost unreadable.

Just get a guide to his thought if you're interested. There are several smaller works available.

Now, paging Grymir.....

Thank you all for your comments. I have a freind who swears by him and my friend has some views that I do not adhere to. So it is good to get some solid info.

Thanks

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 10:32:44 EST-----

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.

Craig,
Thanks for the links. I am going to read and listen.

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 10:33:40 EST-----

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.

Bruce, can you elaborate on Christo-monistic?

Thanks

Wow, this thread would make Tim Johnson's (Grymir) head explode. I can't believe he hasn't posted yet...

Get ready for both barrels, loaded to the muzzle.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Wow, this thread would make Tim Johnson's (Grymir) head explode. I can't believe he hasn't posted yet...

Get ready for both barrels, loaded to the muzzle.

Ha! I would have thought he would have already posted in here!

Christo-centric: The message of the Bible is centered on Christ

Christo-telic: The purpose of revelation is to point us to Christ

Christo-monistic: God is only interested in Christ.

To the degree that God is interested in an "ordinary" person, it is only tertiary. Christ is Elect, and he alone. Subsidiarity to him the church ideal is elect. Only after that may one speak of individuals as being in some sense elect. And it could be that there are no "non-elect", which would mean that personal "election" is really wiped out entirely making it a meaningless category. God inhabits Christ, and doubly predestines him--electing himself for judgment, electing man for salvation.

All very esoteric, but that is where "actuality" and "possibility" are both to be found. Our personal concerns about our relation to God, our sinfulness, etc.--all this is a mistake, as far as KB is concerned. Salvation is about discovering how you are already IN Christ, not about being awakened to your need to be found in Him.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Christo-monistic: God is only interested in Christ.

To the degree that God is interested in an "ordinary" person, it is only tertiary. Christ is Elect, and he alone. Subsidiarity to him the church ideal is elect. Only after that may one speak of individuals as being in some sense elect. And it could be that there are no "non-elect", which would mean that personal "election" is really wiped out entirely making it a meaningless category. God inhabits Christ, and doubly predestines him--electing himself for judgment, electing man for salvation.

I remember reading Barth on election a few years ago and could not believe he was listed among the reformed theologians. His view of predestination is no predestination at all except for Christ. When I finally understood what he (might have) meant, I gave up and decided my time would be better invested in Turretini and Owen.

Sorry to be coming to this thread so late. My major theology prof in college was a strong Barthian and my historical theology prof in seminary was one of the translators of the 14 volume Church Dogmatics, his 9,000+ pages magnum opus.

I agree with everything Bruce offered already. Here are some extra colors for the basic picture.

* Barth cut his teeth on theological liberalism (total emphasis upon the imminence of God and the horizontal dimensions of "religion").
* Barth rebelled against liberalism and tried to pioneer a "return to the Bible" without fundamentalism and without ignoring the "insights" of the Enlightenment. He emphasized the transcendent God who acted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
* Barth was afflicted with the philosophical implications of an existentializing of everything in the 20th century. His affinities with that failed philosophy can also be seen in Brunner and Bultmann.
* Barth was a "dialectical" thinker. A and its opposite B resolve themselves in C. Much of what he seems to affirm is put in stark opposition to its polar opposite. That is why it is so infuriating to ask him what he thinks of the Bible, universal salvation, etc. No sooner does he make a statement that seems orthodox when he denies it in the next paragraph. You can hardly read his voluminous writings without finding contradictory things said on the same subject. Reading Barth in context is essential, and essentially frustrating.
* During his famous visit to America in 1960 he was asked a question by Carl F.H. Henry, who identified himself as the editor of Christianity Today. Barth responded by joking, "Oh, you mean Christianity Yesterday?" Kindof cold, don't you think? Then, on that same visit, he was asked to summarize his years of theological ruminations and he did so by saying: "Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so."
* Time magazine put him on its cover in April of 1962 (pretty impressive placement for a secular mag).
* During the 1950s and 1960s he was the doyen of mainline/liberal Protestantism in America.
* Several of my seminary profs and good friends studied (at least partly) under Barth in Basel, including Robert P. Meye and Daniel P. Fuller.
* Barth's personal life was very . . . er . . . hmmmm . . . "European." He had an assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, who lived with his family for decades. He and she would go off summers to the mountains (without his family) to think theologically and "work." She acted as the hostess when Barth received important guests at his summer get-away.
* Barth began each day with a selection of Motzart, his favorite composer.
* Barth came from the Reformed tradition (in the same sense that the PCUSA and the CRC does). I mean, he wasn't a Baptist or a Lutheran, or a Roman Catholic. However, he took GREAT offense at Calvin and corrected him often.
* Barth understood that if election is understood in the Reformed sense, it would lead to heaven or hell. Only by redefining election as applying only to Christ (e.g., christomonism) does he solve the problem. Christ was the prodigal son, the judge who came to be judged in our place, the one on whom the judgment for sin fell AND the elect predestined one. Since humanity is IN Christ, he could offer no compelling argument against those who accused him of universalism. Because of the way in which he reconciled the two sides of God's electing grace in Christ, there was really no logical room left for hell.
* Barth is fairly popular today with emergents who like his ability to say "yes" and "no" at the same time in a cool and confusing way. They also like his unwillingness to posit anything other than a glorious future for humanity in Christ.
* G.C. Berkouwer (mentor to both Jack Rogers AND R.C. Sproul Sr) wrote a book, the Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Barth liked it and said that Berkouwer understood him. Conservatives at places such as Westminster called it the "Triumph of Karl Barth in the Theology of G.C. Berkouwer."

I have this book by Van Til but I have yet to read it,

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Barthianism-Cornelius-Van-Til/dp/0875524818/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242929077&sr=8-8]Amazon.com: Christianity and Barthianism: Cornelius Van Til: Books[/ame]

OK AND WHO IS Grymir?

I guess I will find out soon enough

Grymir is the PB name of a man who is a member of a PCUSA church and absolutely HATES Barth and Barthianism for the corrosive effect on spirituality and doctrine in his denomination.

I've already PM'ed him a few hours ago - he was on the bacon grease thread yesterday, so I know he's active now, and to be perfectly honest, I thought he could have smelled this thread from Iowa.

It may be that he started reading here and had a massive aneurysm a few posts into it. That's my guess.

Oh I thought that he might have been a huge Barth Fan and was going to refute all the bad press.

And forgive me I know I have looked into this before but as to the Presbyterian Church which one is liberal and which one is solid in it's theology again?

Thanks

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith
And forgive me I know I have looked into this before but as to the Presbyterian Church which one is liberal and which one is solid in it's theology again?

The PC(USA) is the standard "liberal" presbyterian church; the EPC is pretty mainline-to-(potentially) liberal; the PCA, OPC, RPCNA, PRC, ARP, etc., are all confessional Presbyterian churches.

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

Oh I thought that he might have been a huge Barth Fan and was going to refute all the bad press.

You'll find none here.

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 03:44:42 EST-----

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

* Barth began each day with a selection of Mozart, his favorite composer.

So I have something in common with Barth! Not that I begin each day with Mozart, not a bad idea, but that he is my favorite composer.

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 03:45:41 EST-----

Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian

Barth is the big dog for mainline evangelicals. Take that for what it means.

Define mainline evangelicals, please.

I find it hilarious that the Forum view of this thread looks like this:

Karl Barth
The Author of My Faith

I did not realize there were so many branches of the Presbyterian church.

I guess Doctrine truly does divide and rightly so. I guess some of these denominations need to split especially when they decide to stray from the narrow way and embrace every kind of false teaching and liberal mindset out there.

I came from a church called the Brooklyn Tabernacle. My ex-pastor Jim Cymbala preaches a very stong Doctrinal Position. That position is: "You Do Not Need Doctrine, You Just Need The Holy Spirit". He preaches on the Authority of Story and not on the Authority of Scripture. To the unlearned he sounds great but once you begin to really study the Bible and see the truth in light of Reformed Thought you see that he is preaching an expereinced based faith and not a biblically based faith. Typical in Arminian circles.

Becase he boasts that he had not seminary training he constantly tells the congregation from the pulpit. "You do not need Doctrine, You do not need seminary, Just say yes to God, the Holy Spirit is all you need".
His whole ministry is based on an event when he was on a fishing boat in Florida and the Holy Spirit spoke to him and said "If you would just teach the people to call upon my name you will never have a building big enough to fit all the people I will send and you will never be in want for a sermon again.
(paraphrased but something of that sort.)

How Dangerous is that!

I know I was under it for 20 years. I was hoodwinked into believing that my position was true Christianity and that Reformed Calvinistic Tehology was basically evil and mean spirited. The only book that he ever gave me was "What Love is This" by Dave Hunt. It was because of that Book and my desire to know truth that I came to embrace Reformed Theology.

It is kind of funny but Cymbala loves to tell stories of Historical Revivals and he constantly tells of Whitefield and the First Great Awakening, Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival, Jeremiah Lamphier and the New York City Prayer Revival and loves to quote from Andrew Bonar. And from what I understand they are were all Reformed in their Doctrine. Yet he condemns Reformed Doctrine.

In those circles they seem to ordain peolpe as pastors who have no seminary training. As long as they are a dynamic speaker and can draw a huge altar call that is the litmus test for the ministry. As long as your doctrine is "I love Jesus" that is pretty much all you need.

DANGEROUS!!!

I cannot beleive I was under that for 20 years. God have mercy!!

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 04:14:44 EST-----

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

I find it hilarious that the Forum view of this thread looks like this:

Karl Barth
The Author of My Faith

That is my Screen Name... Don't be a wise Guy!!!

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

I came from a church called the Brooklyn Tabernacle.....Becase he boasts that he had not seminary training he constantly tells the congregation from the pulpit. "You do not need Doctrine, You do not need seminary, Just say yes to God, the Holy Spirit is all you need".

So what about Jesus Christ?

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

I did not realize there were so many branches of the Presbyterian church.

I guess Doctrine truly does divide and rightly so. I guess some of these denominations need to split especially when they decide to stray from the narrow way and embrace every kind of false teaching and liberal mindset out there.

I hope you don't see the confessional & reformed denominations as essentially divided though. Although there might be some disagreements amongst some of the Presbyterian Reformed denoms on certain issues, they do have an established formal relationship with one another.

Take NAPARC for example. The denomination that I belong to, OPC, is a member of NAPARC and I noticed that the fraternal relations it has with the other NAPARC denoms is honored whenever it welcomes fraternal delegates from these other denoms.

You can click on the link below if you want to check this out further:
NAPARC's website.

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

The only book that he ever gave me was "What Love is This" by Dave Hunt. It was because of that Book and my desire to know truth that I came to embrace Reformed Theology.

How funny is that !

WHERE IS Grymir? The Anticipation is KILLING ME!!!

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 05:25:24 EST-----

Maybe if I wore an "I love Karl Barth" tee shirt he would hasten to the call?

Grymir! Hey Tim! Where are you? I've been telling everybody what a fan of Barth you are. How you have every book he ever wrote underlined. How you defend his relationship with his assistant, Lollo (aka Ms. Charlotte). How you read him and then study your NIV in the paperback version. How you celebrate the great impact that he has had upon your denomination.

Tim . . . Tim . . . are you there???

So I have something in common with Barth!

Ivan, you vacation with your assistant too!

Barth is the big dog for mainline evangelicals. Take that for what it means.

Most of the PhD theology types in the major evangelical seminaries slobber all over themselves when Barth's name is mentioned. With the massive corpus of his works, nobody really reads it all. But, what an ego trip to throw his name around as if you are so erudite and so cool too. The irony is that the evangelicals discovered Barth just as the mainliners were moving on to more contemporary ideologies.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

I came from a church called the Brooklyn Tabernacle.....Becase he boasts that he had not seminary training he constantly tells the congregation from the pulpit. "You do not need Doctrine, You do not need seminary, Just say yes to God, the Holy Spirit is all you need".

So what about Jesus Christ?

There is such an infactuation with the "gifts" the "Holy Spirit" gives in these churches. At the end of it, and I can speak from experience being in a charasmatic church for four years, its not about how precious Jesus is, but how much gifts or authority I have been given by the Holy Ghost. Its about numbers, and stradegies. We NEED DOCTRINE. For it is in our doctrine, where we KNOW THE TRUE JESUS.

I recommend you find Webster's Barth (see [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Barth-Outstanding-Christian-Thinkers-Webster/dp/0826474632/ref=sr_1_3/105-5316782-5994063?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181264078&sr=1-3"]here[/ame]) for a starter read to get the lay of the land.

AMR

Barth... Isn't he the bratty kid on The Simpsons?

Theognome

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

I came from a church called the Brooklyn Tabernacle.....Becase he boasts that he had not seminary training he constantly tells the congregation from the pulpit. "You do not need Doctrine, You do not need seminary, Just say yes to God, the Holy Spirit is all you need".

So what about Jesus Christ?

There is such an infactuation with the "gifts" the "Holy Spirit" gives in these churches. At the end of it, and I can speak from experience being in a charasmatic church for four years, its not about how precious Jesus is, but how much gifts or authority I have been given by the Holy Ghost. Its about numbers, and stradegies. We NEED DOCTRINE. For it is in our doctrine, where we KNOW THE TRUE JESUS.

But doctrine is Dead. Just say yes to God. Just trust Jesus. Just be led by the Spirit. Doctrine is dry and those who adhere to it are orthodoxy dead heads with no Holy Spirit. Speak in tongues, pray, no SCREAM at God and DECREE that he heals and saves and provides finances. DECREE IT and do not doubt. After all THE MOST IMPORTANT MEETING of the Week is the Prayer Meeting. In order to have an effective service you MUST have an altar call for believers to respond to the word preached. At the end of your sermon just dim the lights, play a beautiful song and beg the people to come forward and say yes to God. BUT whatever you do please DO NOT TEACH THEM DOCTRINE because if you keep them stupid enough and simply preach personal stories about how God spoke to you and how God answered your prayers by sending you 1 Million Dollars you will keep the people coming because after all it is all about NUMBERS. And we all know that Numbers = Money.

This is the Theology of most Charismatic Churches.

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 08:31:55 EST-----

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

I recommend you find Webster's Barth (see here) for a starter read to get the lay of the land.

AMR

Thanks I want to read him because i want to know how to respond in a sound biblical way. I will check it out.

Thanks

Originally Posted by glorifyinggodinwv

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.

Chris, your experience is what I was speaking of when noting that evangelicals discovered Barth just about when he was all but buried in the mainline sems. They had discovered the delights of gay theology, feminist theology, ecological theology, et. al.

Originally Posted by glorifyinggodinwv

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.

Chris no disrespect meant to you but tell me. Did you adhere to the doctrines of Grace before you enrolled in that school? If so WHY IN THE WORLD would you enroll? I was attending Alliance Theological Seminary in NYC and it was there through a professor who graduated from Westminster in Philly and was a Reformed Pastor that I came to embrace Calvinism. Between his teaching and a book that I was given by my pastor "What Love is This" I came to embrace Reformed Theology. This professor was probably the ONLY Reformed guy there. My next class I received 2 books that were basically Black Liberation Theology and Another that seemed to be only endorsed by the most liberal seminaries. I drop out of that school.

I have a problem, maybe this should be a whole separate post. I might even do that. But how can someone who is Reformed attend a school like Princeton, Union Theological Seminary or Crozer Rochester Divinity School or any other Liberal Seminary where ordaining homosexuals and liberation theology are the norm?

I had an argument with a friend who is Arminian who's Pastor attended Union in NYC. He told me that Seminary is not the church and therefore He had no problem studying to get a Doctrate in Theology in one of those institutions. I personally think that is hogwash. To say seminary is not the church is like saying Medical School is not the hospital. But if the school is producing quacks what is the hospital going to be filled with?

Sorry I just do not get that line of thinking. No offense just puzzles me.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by glorifyinggodinwv

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.

Chris, your experience is what I was speaking of when noting that evangelicals discovered Barth just about when he was all but buried in the mainline sems. They had discovered the delights of gay theology, feminist theology, ecological theology, et. al.

Dennis,
Sorry about that. I had missed the last line in one of your posts where you said exactly that.
Blessings,

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 08:45:36 EST-----

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

Originally Posted by glorifyinggodinwv

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.

Chris no disrespect meant to you but tell me. Did you adhere to the doctrines of Grace before you enrolled in that school? If so WHY IN THE WORLD would you enroll? I was attending Alliance Theological Seminary in NYC and it was there through a professor who graduated from Westminster in Philly and was a Reformed Pastor that I came to embrace Calvinism. Between his teaching and a book that I was given by my pastor "What Love is This" I came to embrace Reformed Theology. This professor was probably the ONLY Reformed guy there. My next class I received 2 books that were basically Black Liberation Theology and Another that seemed to be only endorsed by the most liberal seminaries. I drop out of that school.

I have a problem, maybe this should be a whole separate post. I might even do that. But how can someone who is Reformed attend a school like Princeton, Union Theological Seminary or Crozer Rochester Divinity School or any other Liberal Seminary where ordaining homosexuals and liberation theology are the norm?

I had an argument with a friend who is Arminian who's Pastor attended Union in NYC. He told me that Seminary is not the church and therefore He had no problem studying to get a Doctrate in Theology in one of those institutions. I personally think that is hogwash. To say seminary is not the church is like saying Medical School is not the hospital. But if the school is producing quacks what is the hospital going to be filled with?

Sorry I just do not get that line of thinking. No offense just puzzles me.

Steven,

I had a vague notion of the DofG when I enrolled. It was certainly not expected that incoming students adhered to any such system. I was converted to the DofG "during" seminary while preaching weekly, studying Calvin, R.C. Sproul, and reading the PB when I had time.

Blessings,

Originally Posted by glorifyinggodinwv

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by glorifyinggodinwv

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.

Chris, your experience is what I was speaking of when noting that evangelicals discovered Barth just about when he was all but buried in the mainline sems. They had discovered the delights of gay theology, feminist theology, ecological theology, et. al.

Dennis,
Sorry about that. I had missed the last line in one of your posts where you said exactly that.
Blessings,

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 08:45:36 EST-----

Originally Posted by The Author of my Faith

Originally Posted by glorifyinggodinwv

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.

Chris no disrespect meant to you but tell me. Did you adhere to the doctrines of Grace before you enrolled in that school? If so WHY IN THE WORLD would you enroll? I was attending Alliance Theological Seminary in NYC and it was there through a professor who graduated from Westminster in Philly and was a Reformed Pastor that I came to embrace Calvinism. Between his teaching and a book that I was given by my pastor "What Love is This" I came to embrace Reformed Theology. This professor was probably the ONLY Reformed guy there. My next class I received 2 books that were basically Black Liberation Theology and Another that seemed to be only endorsed by the most liberal seminaries. I drop out of that school.

I have a problem, maybe this should be a whole separate post. I might even do that. But how can someone who is Reformed attend a school like Princeton, Union Theological Seminary or Crozer Rochester Divinity School or any other Liberal Seminary where ordaining homosexuals and liberation theology are the norm?

I had an argument with a friend who is Arminian who's Pastor attended Union in NYC. He told me that Seminary is not the church and therefore He had no problem studying to get a Doctrate in Theology in one of those institutions. I personally think that is hogwash. To say seminary is not the church is like saying Medical School is not the hospital. But if the school is producing quacks what is the hospital going to be filled with?

Sorry I just do not get that line of thinking. No offense just puzzles me.

Steven,

I had a vague notion of the DofG when I enrolled. It was certainly not expected that incoming students adhered to any such system. I was converted to the DofG "during" seminary while preaching weekly, studying Calvin, R.C. Sproul, and reading the PB when I had time.

Blessings,

Good!

Originally Posted by glorifyinggodinwv

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.

Steven,

I had a vague notion of the DofG when I enrolled. It was certainly not expected that incoming students adhered to any such system. I was converted to the DofG "during" seminary while preaching weekly, studying Calvin, R.C. Sproul, and reading the PB when I had time.

Blessings,

This describes my seminary experience to a T.

Union, Columbia, or Louisville?

Originally Posted by Theognome

Barth... Isn't he the bratty kid on The Simpsons?

Theognome

Don't have an existential cow, man.

O.K. Y'all. Here I come to save the day!! <insert mighty mouse emoticon here.>

I just got off of work. I could smell the evil stench when I walked in the door.

To sum it up, Barth is a hack that doesn't deserve the paper he's printed on. My wife is brewing me some coffee, and I'll post specifics in a while.

To wit, if my Bible is sitting in the woods and nobody is around to read it; is it still the word of God??? Barth says no.

By the way. I did get a job. I'll line cooking now instead of being the General manager/Chef, so my time is more limited. I'm not ignorin y'all.

I have to get out of these greasy clothes to deal with this dirty subject.

Where my theological Sham Wow?

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 11:33:07 EST-----

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Grymir! Hey Tim! Where are you? I've been telling everybody what a fan of Barth you are. How you have every book he ever wrote underlined. How you defend his relationship with his assistant, Lollo (aka Ms. Charlotte). How you read him and then study your NIV in the paperback version. How you celebrate the great impact that he has had upon your denomination.

Tim . . . Tim . . . are you there???

Paperback?? Paperback?? You can't even buy Barth in paperback! Don't make make me break out my John Hagee autographed Scofield KJV!! My dog won't even eat it. (hint, hint).

And way too much influence on my denomination. They talk about love. Love, love, love. My pastor is a grad of Princeton. He is a Barth fan. That's what they taught when he was there. Neo-orthodoxy is a plague on the church. Love, Love, Love. Happy Happy Joy Joy.

Which brings me to Barth's legacy. Sermon after sermon about how your life will be better if you have alot of Jesus (we can't have a little Jesus, we have to have a big Jesus). The Bible mined for it's great psychological gems, Jesus will be your therapist. Jesus is the great example of what we should act like. No sin, no death. The cross is a shining example of God's love for us...only. No atonement. No mention of hell. Nada. Zip. Zero. Ziltch. PPPPllleeeaaasssee. Just one mention of hell would be nice.

Like I READ in Barth. You only mention sin in relation to the cross. Never mention it in relation to the people (that's in his book on preaching).

We almost sound like a Jesus only church. God the father? God the Holy Ghost? Who are they??

More to come. I'm on my second cup of coffee and just getting warmed up!

Originally Posted by Grymir

Paperback?? Paperback?? You can't even buy Barth in paperback! Don't make make me break out my John Hagee autographed Scofield KJV!! My dog won't even eat it. (hint, hint).

Tim,

First, congrats on getting the job. We have missed you, however. It is good to have you back, brother.

Second, my sentence was about studying your "NIV in paperback" (= a double slam on a KJV leather man).

Third, yes there is a printing of Barth in paperback out now. The Church Dogmatics in paper is available for $399 from CBD (Vendor: Continuum International/ Publication Date: 2009/ ISBN: 056702279X ISBN-13: 9780567022790).

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Third, yes there is a printing of Barth in paperback out now. The Church Dogmatics in paper is available for $399 from CBD (Vendor: Continuum International/ Publication Date: 2009/ ISBN: 056702279X ISBN-13: 9780567022790).

Timothy, this is great! Want to go in on it with me?