I struggle with this question in my spiritual walk. I want to give my current opinion and hear the other members' opinions.
My current position:
When I think about this question the first people to pop into my mind are classical neo-orthodox theologians/preachers like Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer as well as the modern theologians/preachers who are influenced by the neo-orthodoxy movement like Stanley Hauerwas, William Wilimon, and Richard Hays.
While I disagree with these theologians views on the inerrancy of scripture, their belief on the atonement, etc. I still see them as my brothers in Christ because I see in their writings and lives a sincere commitment to follow the risen Christ. I mean the classical neo-orthodox theologians stood against Hitler on scriptural grounds, and Bonhoeffer was even executed because of it.
I define a Christian as someone who has faith in the physically risen Jesus that is God incarnate, and a member of the Trinitarian godhead. All of the six people who I have listed affirm this truth and defend it in their writings (Hauerwas even takes the Niehbur brothers to task in a speech because he believed that their theology did not affirm this essential truth).
I would argue that theologians/preachers who hold to theological liberalism, examples are classical thinkers like Schleiermacher, Schweitzer, and Tillich and modern thinkers like John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong, and Marcus Borg. They are not Christians because they see Jesus as a great moral teacher who spiritually rose from the dead and the spirit of his deeds continue to inspire Christians to believe in the example of this Jesus and stand against teh injustices of society.
I would like to end my opinion by quoting Richard J. Mouw on a conversation he had about Karl Barth with Cornelius Van Til (please try to bracket unfavorable opinions about Mouw wihen reading this quote):
"The second stalwart is the late Cornelius Van Til, longtime professor of apologetics at Westminster Seminary. I visited him once in his Philadelphia home, shortly after I graduated from college, and I asked him some questions about his stern rejection of Karl Barth’s theology. While others in the evangelical world were welcoming many of Barth’s contributions as a clear step back toward traditional orthodoxy, Van Til was insisting that Barth’s theology was nothing more than “the new modernism” in disguise.
In posing a question to Van Til about this, I began with these words: “As someone who does not see Karl Barth as a real Christian, what….?” Van Til cut me off sharply right there, and in an excited voice, he said, “No! No! I have never said Barth is not a Christian. Never! What I have said is that his theology is not genuinely Christian. If all that a person knew about the Gospel is what they learned from his theology, they could not come to Christ!”
Now I would disagree that no one could come to Christ via Barth's defective theology because I don't want think that God couldn't call his elect through Barth's preaching. That being said most Christian in my experience become influenced by Barth post-conversion.
I would really like other opinions on this issue and critiques on mine.
In Christ Alone,
Marcus
P.S. I would like to make my understanding of Orthodoxy clear so no one don't confuse the so called Christian my post is directed towards non-evangelicals specifically. I consider true classical Arminians to be within the realm of evangelical orthodoxy, but not reformed orthodoxy. I guess this question revolves around what is Christian Orthodoxy/who is elect in the broadest sense.
My current position:
When I think about this question the first people to pop into my mind are classical neo-orthodox theologians/preachers like Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer as well as the modern theologians/preachers who are influenced by the neo-orthodoxy movement like Stanley Hauerwas, William Wilimon, and Richard Hays.
While I disagree with these theologians views on the inerrancy of scripture, their belief on the atonement, etc. I still see them as my brothers in Christ because I see in their writings and lives a sincere commitment to follow the risen Christ. I mean the classical neo-orthodox theologians stood against Hitler on scriptural grounds, and Bonhoeffer was even executed because of it.
I define a Christian as someone who has faith in the physically risen Jesus that is God incarnate, and a member of the Trinitarian godhead. All of the six people who I have listed affirm this truth and defend it in their writings (Hauerwas even takes the Niehbur brothers to task in a speech because he believed that their theology did not affirm this essential truth).
I would argue that theologians/preachers who hold to theological liberalism, examples are classical thinkers like Schleiermacher, Schweitzer, and Tillich and modern thinkers like John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong, and Marcus Borg. They are not Christians because they see Jesus as a great moral teacher who spiritually rose from the dead and the spirit of his deeds continue to inspire Christians to believe in the example of this Jesus and stand against teh injustices of society.
I would like to end my opinion by quoting Richard J. Mouw on a conversation he had about Karl Barth with Cornelius Van Til (please try to bracket unfavorable opinions about Mouw wihen reading this quote):
"The second stalwart is the late Cornelius Van Til, longtime professor of apologetics at Westminster Seminary. I visited him once in his Philadelphia home, shortly after I graduated from college, and I asked him some questions about his stern rejection of Karl Barth’s theology. While others in the evangelical world were welcoming many of Barth’s contributions as a clear step back toward traditional orthodoxy, Van Til was insisting that Barth’s theology was nothing more than “the new modernism” in disguise.
In posing a question to Van Til about this, I began with these words: “As someone who does not see Karl Barth as a real Christian, what….?” Van Til cut me off sharply right there, and in an excited voice, he said, “No! No! I have never said Barth is not a Christian. Never! What I have said is that his theology is not genuinely Christian. If all that a person knew about the Gospel is what they learned from his theology, they could not come to Christ!”
Now I would disagree that no one could come to Christ via Barth's defective theology because I don't want think that God couldn't call his elect through Barth's preaching. That being said most Christian in my experience become influenced by Barth post-conversion.
I would really like other opinions on this issue and critiques on mine.
In Christ Alone,
Marcus
P.S. I would like to make my understanding of Orthodoxy clear so no one don't confuse the so called Christian my post is directed towards non-evangelicals specifically. I consider true classical Arminians to be within the realm of evangelical orthodoxy, but not reformed orthodoxy. I guess this question revolves around what is Christian Orthodoxy/who is elect in the broadest sense.
Last edited:
