Karl Barth?

[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-----

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

 

[DMcFadden]

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.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

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.

 

[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-----

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,

 

[The Author of my Faith]

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-----

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!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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?

 

[Marrow Man]

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

Theognome

Don't have an existential cow, man.

 

[Grymir]

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-----

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!

 

[DMcFadden]

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).

 

[Ivan]

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?

 

[Grymir]

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.

 

[Ivan]

And although I thank you Ivan for the offer, I have to decline.

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

So I have something in common with Barth!

Ivan, you vacation with your assistant too!

No! He stays home.

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.[/

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.

 

[DMcFadden]

Ivan,

Remember that in some ways the SBC is a VERY insular body. Sometimes I think they make the Presbyterian 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.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

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-----

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.

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

 

[Grymir]

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.

 

[DMcFadden]

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

 

[greenbaggins]

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

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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

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".

 

[DMcFadden]

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".

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My own stab at it:

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

Was he Reformed?

No.

Is his work worth reading?

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.

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

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.

Is his view on Election correct?

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.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

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.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

 

[MrMerlin777]

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

 

[The Author of my Faith]

Is that your kid?

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.

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

He is going to hate you when he gets older

 

[reformed trucker]

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.

Gotta love Van Til...

 

[DMcFadden]

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

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.

 

[Ivan]

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?

 

[DMcFadden]

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

 

[The Author of my Faith]

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!

 

[Ivan]

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....