Barth in paperback? Sigh. Thats all I need is for him to be more accessable to the people in my church. And still $399? Maybe DMcFadden meant $3.99? That's more appropriate. And although I thank you Ivan for the offer, I have to decline.

As to the OP, I just don't understand how he got so popular. He's a big deal to those who are middle-of-the-roader's. As to his worth reading? "Nein!" I had to read him because he's so prevelant in my church. People said "How can you say that stuff about him if you haven't read him." Sigh. So I read him and then gave quotes to show what I was saying. I found his letters to be the most enjoyable. It shows the practical side of him and his struggles. Which he wouldn't of had to go through if he would of taken a stand on the bible as the Word of God instead of Containing the Word of God.

For a good example, compare the Barmen Declaration to the Westminister Confession of Faith. The difference between them like night and day. A confession 'light' and a real confession.

I think he reads like a devotional at best...to put him in the best terms.

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

-----Added 5/22/2009 at 01:08:47 EST-----

[quote=DMcFadden;621874] No! He stays home.


I don't know if that's the case in SBC seminaries. I certainly haven't heard that to be the case. I'm sure they know about him and have read him but I doubt that they are slobbering over him!

But I might be wrong.

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

Ivan,

Remember that in some ways the SBC is a VERY insular body. Sometimes I think they make the Presby micro-denominations look broad minded!

There are a few bodies out there (e.g., Restorationist Cambellites, certain sects of the Reformed, and the SBC) that are soooo insular that they tend to read their own publications, use their own S.S. materials, and talk their own language. I'm not surprised that Barth would not be all that popular in the SBC. He would have been popular in some of the OLD SBC seminaries before the Resurgence. But, many of the broad evangelical schools tipped their hats to him often. Frankly, however, today the libs are addicted to GLBTQ, feminist, and green "theologies." The evangelicals are dabbling with the emergent crowd more than any of the old timer theologians.

But, to the extent that Grymir is concerned about the negative effects of the Baron of Basel, his influence has waned in the mainline academy and is pretty much limited to academic broad evangelicalism. Again, I am under no misapprehensions of his popularity. McLaren or Padgett would be read a lot more than Barth these days.

__________________
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?

GRYMIR, SO YOU ARE NOT A MYTH AFER ALL!! LOL.

So Barth was really that bad. Can you give me 3 SHORT examples of what he teaches that is not inline with the Historic Christian faith. Not 3 BOOKS

Steve

-----Added 5/22/2009 at 07:10:48 EST-----

Tim is your denomination the "Liberal" one? I am still not too familiar with the Presbyterian Church and the different branches.

__________________
Steve
Sonship Ministries (Reformed)
Brooklyn, NY

Goodmorning The Author of my Faith.

Yes, the PCUSA is the liberal one. But I judge Church's by what the local church's stand for, not the national body. Because for me, my Anti-Barth stance is personal. He's A big influence in my church, and not just another theologian to study. I gave some of the bad influences he has above, so let me give you some examples.

First, He denies that the Bible is the literal Word of God. That as you read the Bible and it moves you, then it becomes the Word of God. That the writers were writing what they see and did, not that the bible is written by God (The Holy Spirit) writing through people.

Second, his denial of the historicity of what the bible presents. As in it may not be historically accurate, but contains spiritual truths that we can learn about God from.

Those two were enough for me, because I was converted by reading the Bible from cover to cover. (read my about me page) It was so obviously written by God, that when any 'theologian' denies this, I know that it leads to other problems.

He also said that we don't study God, but that we learn about Him in relationship. Which is wrong, we do study God and learn about him from the bible. His Christ centered theology epistemologically wrong. He says that we learn about God by looking through Jesus. In reality, we really have access to the Father through Jesus and can approach Him and learn about him directly.

These are a few quickly jotted details. I have wake up and go to work, so I'll post more later tonight.

1. As with most neo-orthodox theologians, the Bible is a witness to Revelation, contains the Word of God, or becomes the Word of God when the Spirit uses it in your life. There is not affirmation of the propositional nature of Revelation. For Barth, Christ is the Word of God, errors in the Bible are irrelevant.

2. Barth rejects Calvin's notions of the decrees of God and of the idea of double predestination. Election is ALL about Christ. He is the reprobate one; he is the elect one.

3. I am quite offended by his relationship with his assistant, Charlotte ("Lollo"). Even granting that most of his biographers dance around the topic and try to make excuses for Barth, Seliger captures my beef in writing: "Part of any realistic response to the subject of Barth and von Kirschbaum must be anger." It has been described as "convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys." And, it lasted for 35 years! Not only did she move into the Barth household, but she and Karl lived/vacationed alone together each summer in the mountains! Even his former student and devoted follower, Eberhard Busch, spoke movingly about how painful the relationship with Charlotte was for Frau Barth to put up with over the years. Yet, when Charlotte was demented in a nursing home, Frau Barth would go to visit her and comfort her.

Van Til used to say that "Barthianism is even more hostile to the theology of Luther and Calvin than Romanism."

"Calvin is in Heaven and has had time to ponder where he went wrong in his teachings. Doubtless he is pleased that I am setting him aright." - Karl Barth

Obviously Exodus 20:14 did not contain the Word of God for Barth.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Markus Barth (Karl's Son) taught here at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and according to students and administrators who were here at the time he would often refer to Charlotte as his "Mütterchen".

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

"Mütterchen"
Just like in the polygamous cults in Utah. I wonder if Karl Barth was related to FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs?

My own stab at it:
No.

Yes, if you're a Pastor, probably not if you are still learning good theology. The only reason I read some of him was to answer the question: "What is the deal with Karl Barth?" I don't know that I have a much better answer after reading a few books by him and critiques of him. His theology is called Critical Realistic Dialectical theology by one author. Van Til tears him apart as being a new form of Modernism. The bottom line with him is that he rejects a historic faith in favor of the "event" of Revelation.

In the sense that he believed that anybody who thought that the essence of the Christian faith was in historical events this is true. He saw such thinking as pagan to believe that real events mattered. This owes to a philosophical framework that doesn't allow God to interact with human history and that we can't move from history to understand God. The Scriptures testify exactly the opposite as God reveals about Himself in the way He redeems in history.

For Barth, the Word of God was not the Word of God sitting on a shelf but became the Word of God in the event of reading it. God interacts at discrete points of history in the event of Revelation but to think that the Words themselves constituted revelation of the nature of God was abhorrent to him.

No. In all of this, remember that I'm doing my best to understand him. He is very confusing.

The bottom line for Barth, however, was sort of this dialectical tension. As I understand it, Men became elect in Christ at Creation because God said No to Chaos. I know that sounds pointless and obscure but that about sums up Barth for me most of the time. He's the kind of guy that people have to try to summarize as best they can for a normal person to understand because his dialecticism makes him nearly impossible to pin down. There is a sense in Barth, though, that God elects everyone in Christ and then there is this impossible irrationality that somehow allows people to un-elect themselves (or not).

I remember hearing Van Til on a recording one time joke about Barth where Barth was so incensed about what Van Til wrote about him that he had stated that Van Til was going to hell but Van Til noted to the audience that this was unusual as Barth didn't believe anyone was going to Hell.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

WHAT? Barth Does NOt Believe in a Literal Hell????

-----Added 5/22/2009 at 06:15:20 EST-----

Can everyone send me your address so i can make out my checks to you. I have decided to drop out of seminary and pay all of you for my education!! lol.

He probably does in one sense and doesn't in another. I'm not an expert at him and don't really ever intend to invest the time philosophically to try to get inside his brain.

Heck, before joining the PB I didn't even know the h in Barth was silent.

__________________
Donald Jacobs
Roanoke VA.
Covenant Reformed Episcopal Church.

Cum vero infirmor tunc potens sum.

Is that your kid with the batman hat? that is hillarious.

He is going to hate you when he gets older

Gotta love Van Til...

__________________
Michael Tremmel
attending Christ Reformed Baptist Church
Hales Corners, WI.

Isaiah 46:5-11

I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. Ps.16:8 ESV

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. 1 Cor.15:10a ESV

Praecepta docent, exempla movent (precepts teach, but examples move)

For Barth, since Christ is the reprobate and the elect, and since we are in Christ, there is really no conceptual room for hell with any ontic significance. If you want to keep it around as a theoretical place holder . . . MAYBE. But, it would never have any metaphysical significance. Because of our being in Christ, the "human face of God," it would be about as meaningful to talk about God sending people to hell as it would asking if God could make a rock too big for him to lift.

Are you Barth, Jr. or something?

Watch your tongue, Ivan! Just trying to answer the man's question about Barth and hell.

SO HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HELL THEM?

Listen Give it to me SIMPLE, don't make me thing!

Hmmm...ah...yeah...I think that's what he's saying....

Let's not forget his almost universalism.

Barth is a hack.

Wouldn't 'almost universalism' be like 'a little pregnant' ?

The logic of Barth's position should lead to universalism. However, he never quite brought himself to speak in such non-dialetical language. So, while he wrote in a very universalistic sounding way, he kept denying that such was what he was trying to say. So . . . go figure.

I just read an interesting article on The Reformed Paradigm — The Puritan Storm

that confirms what most are saying on this board about Barth.



Karl Barth alarmed at Nietzsche like liberalism with its resultant tyranny, felt compelled along with other 20th century theologians to reinvent orthodoxy (deemed neo-orthodoxy or new orthodoxy). Unfortunately, Barth and his colleagues borrowed heavily on the heretical presuppositions of their more militant liberal brothers, in that they rejected confessional creedal orthodoxy (like Nietzsche convinced such notions were outmoded). Additionally, the neo-orthodox roundly reject the inspiration, infallibility and immutable authority of the Scriptures, derogatorily calling it “the paper pope.” Thus, while holding selected moral lessons of traditional Christianity, the neo-orthodox are essentially unitarian-universalists. Notwithstanding, because they have remolded God into man’s image, they remain blaspheming heretics perhaps more dangerous than their frothing liberal counterparts in that neo-orthodox tyranny is kinder and gentler replete with a beguiling smile.

The neo-orthodox have had a profound and deleterious effect on evangelicals, effectively eroding their ability and will to resist humanistic thought.When you combine the effects of Hegalian statism, Nietzsche like elitism, Darwinian dehumanization and Barth’s anesthetizing universalism, you have a full orbed comprehensive world-life-view which like the builders of the tower of Babel are seeking to dethrone God and establish man as sovereign. It should also be plain and painfully clear that evangelicalism is not only unable to cope with this challenge, but for all intents and purposes has already been neutralized by adopting some if not all of humanism’s presuppositions.

Gordon Clark wrote an excellent critique of Karl Barth:
Trinity Foundation

__________________
Jim
An Elder, Harvest Reformed Church (RCUS),Minot, ND
http://www.harvestreformedchurch.org/
http://tbftgoggi.wordpress.com/

Upon a life I did not live; upon a death I did not die, Another's death, Another's life, I'd rest my soul eternally
Omnia dicta fortiora,si dicta Latina
Si vis pacem, para bellum

There is some stuff on my blog. Scroll down to 'Barth'.

__________________
Independent Reformed Baptist Church (NE England, nr. Durham)

QUOTE=Dieter Schneider;628766]There is some stuff on my blog. Scroll down to 'Barth'.[/QUOTE]

What no Benny Hinn?

"The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth"?

Here's a juicy tid-bit;

Barth held to what is known as the threefold Word of God. In other words, preaching (or proclamation), scripture, and revelation are considered to be three different, yet unified forms of the Word of God. Barth's analogy was the Trinity (see CD I/1, 121). Futhermore,

There is no distinction of degree or value between these three forms. For to the extent that proclamation really rests on recollection of the revelation attested in the Bible and is thus obedient repitition of the biblical witness, it is no less the Word of God than the Bible. And to the extent that the Bible really attests revelation it is no less the Word of God than revelation itself. As the Bible and proclamation become God's Word in virtue of the actuality of revelation, they are God's Word: the one Word of God within which there can be neither a more nor a less. Nor should we ever try to understand the three forms of God's Word in isolation. The first, revelation, is the form that underlies the other two (CD I/1, 120-121).

Taken from here - http://www.theopedia.com/Theology_of_Karl_Barth

Any reccomendations for books by or about Barth that would sketch out his theology?

The Gordon Clark volume above looks like the ticket. But what about The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth?

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

You get a lot of Barth & Neo-Orthodoxy in Robert L. Short's books:

Amazon.com: Robert L. Short: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

For the most part it's easy to pick out those elements. It seems the later the book, the stronger the "bad" influences come in. Universalism is fairly blatant in one section of "Short Meditations."

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

My standard answer is:

1. Read The Doctrine of God: The Election of God; The Command of God first (Volume II, Part 2)

2. Next read all of Volume IV Chronologically
Volume IV Part 1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation
Volume IV Part 2: Doctrine of Reconciliation: Jesus Christ the Servant As Lord
Volume IV Part 3, 1st and 2nd halves: Doctrine of Reconciliation: Jesus Christ the True Witness
Volume IV Part 4: Doctrine of Reconciliation: The Foundation of the Christian Life (Baptism) (was never finished and can be skipped as it is not one of his finest efforts)

By the time you finish with the above, you will be smart enough about the man to decide where you want to go next. My favorite would be to read Volume II Part 1: The Doctrine of God: The Knowledge of God; The Reality of God.

But, having said all of that, I recommend you find Webster's Barth (see

__________________
Patrick
Member, PCA
Chandler, AZ
ReformedTheologyInstitute.com

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

I have to agree. It's best to actually read Barth. Reading what others say is fine...but nothing else reads like Barth himself. Then you will know his, umm, umm, lack of theology first hand. Nothing does that better than actually reading him. I had to read his stuff because everyone follows him at church. And that's what really turned me off to him. After reading the greats, it was a let down after the hype.

Good luck.

Sigh.