Barth?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwright82

jwright82

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This is probably more of a rant than anything else. But I have heard and read so many solid Reformed people say "Karl Barth is the most significant theologian of the 20nth century", in what way? They all criticized him. I mean historically I guess. But I don't know. This is kind of toung in cheek but what are y'alls thoughts?
 
He is significant. You don't write 30 or so massive volumes and be irrelevant. Of course, and I've read a couple thousand pages of Barth, just scratching the surface, I think he is wrong. But his commentary on Romans forced old school German liberalism to commit suicide, so that's good.

Some people say he is the force that killed the PCUSA in America. I don't think that is really true. Sure, those ministers (and ministeresses) read Barth, but they were likely on that path, anyway.

I think mainline scholarship is moving more away from Barth. The current rage is "narrative" and "community." Sure, you can find those elements in Barth, but they aren't really front and center.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
He is significant. You don't write 30 or so massive volumes and be irrelevant. Of course, and I've read a couple thousand pages of Barth, just scratching the surface, I think he is wrong. But his commentary on Romans forced old school German liberalism to commit suicide, so that's good.

Some people say he is the force that killed the PCUSA in America. I don't think that is really true. Sure, those ministers (and ministeresses) read Barth, but they were likely on that path, anyway.

I think mainline scholarship is moving more away from Barth. The current rage is "narrative" and "community." Sure, you can find those elements in Barth, but they aren't really front and center.
Click to expand...
Thanks. It would seem that it seems twofold: historical and bringing reformed theology to a radical extreme.
 
john Frame and Andrew Hoffecker. Van Til was the best though. His most scholarly work was on Barth. You don't have to agree with him but no one can doubt that Barth was treated in a bad way. I have them all on itunes but Frame and Van Til are on the WTS media center archives.
 
jwright82 said:
john Frame and Andrew Hoffecker. Van Til was the best though. His most scholarly work was on Barth. You don't have to agree with him but no one can doubt that Barth was treated in a bad way. I have them all on itunes but Frame and Van Til are on the WTS media center archives.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've listened to those. Some of Van Til's are funny.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Yeah, I've listened to those. Some of Van Til's are funny.
Click to expand...
He is "weird" at times but it can't be denied that he didn't know his stuff. I've heard stories about this. But I still don't understand "why the fascination?" I don't know.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Fascination with Barth or Van Til?
Click to expand...
Both. I love Van Til and Barth isn't worth the paper he's written on. But for some reason he (Barth) seems to remain a fascinating person or something else? It's like we have to study him, rather than let bygones be bygones.
 
jwright82 said:
Both. I love Van Til and Barth isn't worth the paper he's written on. But for some reason he (Barth) seems to remain a fascinating person or something else? It's like we have to study him, rather than let bygones be bygones.
Click to expand...

Barth wrote a tremendous amount about Christology and Doctrine of God at a time when Reformed and Evangelicals weren't writing that much about it. And Barth was responding to developments in V2 Catholicism, and that is important.

But as I've said earlier, I don't think he is as important today as he was earlier, even by liberal standards.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Barth wrote a tremendous amount about Christology and Doctrine of God at a time when Reformed and Evangelicals weren't writing that much about it. And Barth was responding to developments in V2 Catholicism, and that is important.

But as I've said earlier, I don't think he is as important today as he was earlier, even by liberal standards.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Thank you.
 
jwright82 said:
Fair enough. Thank you.
Click to expand...

And there wasn't much going on in American circles. Fundamentalists were having prophecy conferences. Reformed were---I am not sure we were doing anything. Liberals really didn't put forth any new scholarship, as everyone had gotten bored with "the assured results of higher criticism." And when Barth turned his guns on liberalism, everyone felt like they had to read him.

The best book on Barth in America:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/karl-barth-and-american-evangelicalism-mccormack.86018/

My own view of Barth is now more critical than it was when I wrote that review. I agree with the earlier Berkouwer that Barth cannot make a transition from "wrath to grace in history." I also think that Barth is an Origenist (that thought is original with me).
 
BayouHuguenot said:
And there wasn't much going on in American circles. Fundamentalists were having prophecy conferences. Reformed were---I am not sure we were doing anything. Liberals really didn't put forth any new scholarship, as everyone had gotten bored with "the assured results of higher criticism." And when Barth turned his guns on liberalism, everyone felt like they had to read him.

The best book on Barth in America:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/karl-barth-and-american-evangelicalism-mccormack.86018/

My own view of Barth is now more critical than it was when I wrote that review. I agree with the earlier Berkouwer that Barth cannot make a transition from "wrath to grace in history." I also think that Barth is an Origenist (that thought is original with me).
Click to expand...
I actually like the Origenist part, I'm curious what you mean though. But yeah I think historically he's important but not theologically. He is off the rails. And my petpeave is people calling him Reformed, he's not. He drive's Reformed theology towards an extreme, so I wonder why do we still care about him?
 
jwright82 said:
I actually like the Origenist part, I'm curious what you mean though. But yeah I think historically he's important but not theologically. He is off the rails. And my petpeave is people calling him Reformed, he's not. He drive's Reformed theology towards an extreme, so I wonder why do we still care about him?
Click to expand...

For Origen "creation" was a sort of "fall" in Being.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
But as I've said earlier, I don't think he is as important today as he was earlier, even by liberal standards
Click to expand...
Yes, most people, myself included, have a shower not a Barth :lol:

Barth seems to have become popular in some sectors of the Emergent Church. I am not sure why; Bath was not postmodern in his epistemology.
 
I admit that Barth was influential but I'm confused about why he is so popular, now he is so we have to deal with him. Apologetics is dealing with the now alongside the future. But sometimes you have to ask why?
 
BayouHuguenot said:
And Barth was responding to developments in V2 Catholicism, and that is important.
Click to expand...

It can be argued that a good chunk of V2 Catholicism (or at least her theologians, Von Balthasar, Congar, Lubac and so on) were influenced by Barth. In fact I think Von Balthasar didn't appreciate the beat down Van Til did on Barth and criticized Van Til for it.
 
Stephen L Smith said:
Yes, most people, myself included, have a shower not a Barth :lol:

Barth seems to have become popular in some sectors of the Emergent Church. I am not sure why; Bath was not postmodern in his epistemology.
Click to expand...

No but Barth had a weak sister view of 'orthodoxy' and how we understand the veracity of Scripture. The whole 'words of God' vs the 'Word of God' schtick. I could see how a caffeine saturated Emergent devotee would eat the 'profundity' of something like that up.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
He is significant. You don't write 30 or so massive volumes and be irrelevant. Of course, and I've read a couple thousand pages of Barth, just scratching the surface, I think he is wrong. But his commentary on Romans forced old school German liberalism to commit suicide, so that's good.

Some people say he is the force that killed the PCUSA in America. I don't think that is really true. Sure, those ministers (and ministeresses) read Barth, but they were likely on that path, anyway.

I think mainline scholarship is moving more away from Barth. The current rage is "narrative" and "community." Sure, you can find those elements in Barth, but they aren't really front and center.
Click to expand...
He seemed to be creeping towards christian universalism though, and did not hold to a fully inspired viewpoint on the bible, correct?
 
Dachaser said:
He seemed to be creeping towards christian universalism though, and did not hold to a fully inspired viewpoint on the bible, correct?
Click to expand...

His view on heaven is tricky. On one hand he left the door open for "everyone getting saved" (though he never exactly said that), yet on the other hand he really downplayed the idea of heaven
 
BayouHuguenot said:
His view on heaven is tricky. On one hand he left the door open for "everyone getting saved" (though he never exactly said that), yet on the other hand he really downplayed the idea of heaven
Click to expand...
His election seemed to imply that it was God elected all to be saved by death of Jesus, and that all were saved, but some refused/unable to see that truth.
 
Barth tried to separate God's Word from the Bible ("the Bible isn't the Word of God. The Bible contains the Word of God"). Hence his neo-orthodoxy. And, it's pretty much all downhill from there.

The attempt, in recent years, to rehabilitate Dietrich Bonhoeffer, also bugs me, and for the same reason - his neo-orthdoxy.

As for the original German liberalism of the 19th century, you should read The Tubingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur by Horton Harris (1975; republished by Baker in 1990). It's a real eye-opener.
 
bookslover said:
Barth tried to separate God's Word from the Bible ("the Bible isn't the Word of God. The Bible contains the Word of God"). Hence his neo-orthodoxy. And, it's pretty much all downhill from there.

The attempt, in recent years, to rehabilitate Dietrich Bonhoeffer, also bugs me, and for the same reason - his neo-orthdoxy.

As for the original German liberalism of the 19th century, you should read The Tubingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur by Horton Harris (1975; republished by Baker in 1990). It's a real eye-opener.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with you. Especially about Bonhoeffer. They are both worth studying but for the average person only at good church or resource.
 
bookslover said:
Barth tried to separate God's Word from the Bible ("the Bible isn't the Word of God. The Bible contains the Word of God"). Hence his neo-orthodoxy. And, it's pretty much all downhill from there.

The attempt, in recent years, to rehabilitate Dietrich Bonhoeffer, also bugs me, and for the same reason - his neo-orthdoxy.

As for the original German liberalism of the 19th century, you should read The Tubingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur by Horton Harris (1975; republished by Baker in 1990). It's a real eye-opener.
Click to expand...
He seemed to hold with the Bible becoming the word of God to us once the Holy Spirit made it seem real to us, and not before that would happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JM
Reading Barth
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
JM
JM
B
  • Locked
karl barth
Replies
14
Views
3K
R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark
Grymir
  • Locked
Why is Barth so popular?
Replies
29
Views
4K
FenderPriest
F
RamistThomist
  • Locked
Barth online library?
Replies
27
Views
3K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
arapahoepark
Barth, Torrance, and Christocentric election
Replies
11
Views
1K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Back
Top