Where would neo-orthodoxy differ?

[sotzo]

Specifically, where are the most stark and most foundational differences with the Reformed confessions?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Phew! A couple of thoughts:

1. Denies the real historical incarnation and resurrection of Christ and places it in some sort of "numenal history".

2. Sees Creation as God saying No to Chaos and the Fall as some sort of regression to that Chaos. Sees redemption itself in Creation and that all are both Elect and Reprobate - all are Jacob and Esau. All are Elect in Christ in some strange sense. The process of election is that we somehow understand what we are instead of pursuing the impossibility of sin.

If I've spoken in a sufficiently vague and confusing manner then I've done my best at sounding Neo-Orthodox.

 

[sotzo]

Phew! A couple of thoughts:

1. Denies the real historical incarnation and resurrection of Christ and places it in some sort of "numenal history".

2. Sees Creation as God saying No to Chaos and the Fall as some sort of regression to that Chaos. Sees redemption itself in Creation and that all are both Elect and Reprobate - all are Jacob and Esau. All are Elect in Christ in some strange sense. The process of election is that we somehow understand what we are instead of pursuing the impossibility of sin.

If I've spoken in a sufficiently vague and confusing manner then I've done my best at sounding Neo-Orthodox.

But weren't there some in the neo-orthodox camp, such as Barth, that did hold to an historical incarnation and resurrection?

 

[DMcFadden]

Barth also held that God is radically free. This is his version of the "sovereignty of God." However, in Barth's construction, God's freedom means that he could choose to be his opposite if he wanted to do so. In the damnably frustrating "dialectic" of Barth, you are always giving with one hand and taking away with the other. None of God's attributes, then, are really immutable, since his freedom trumps them all.

What Barth "believed in" is tricky. Yes, he gave lip service to many of the Reformed doctrines. However, while his vocabulary is the same, his dictionary is radically different. On the resurrection, for example, it took place in history in some sense. Yet, it would not have shown up on a camera.

A couple of years ago I had the privilege of preaching at a weekend men's retreat for an international church in Munich. Afterwards my wife and I went to spend a week with our daugher who was a missionary working with MK's at the Black Forest Academy. We took a few days to see Basel and Geneva. Standing in Calvin's pulpit was a moving highpoint. Posing for a picture in front of Barth's house in Basel was for the orneriness of it all!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Phew! A couple of thoughts:

1. Denies the real historical incarnation and resurrection of Christ and places it in some sort of "numenal history".

2. Sees Creation as God saying No to Chaos and the Fall as some sort of regression to that Chaos. Sees redemption itself in Creation and that all are both Elect and Reprobate - all are Jacob and Esau. All are Elect in Christ in some strange sense. The process of election is that we somehow understand what we are instead of pursuing the impossibility of sin.

If I've spoken in a sufficiently vague and confusing manner then I've done my best at sounding Neo-Orthodox.

But weren't there some in the neo-orthodox camp, such as Barth, that did hold to an historical incarnation and resurrection?

As noted, not really. He said that it occurred in history but not real history. In fact, he eschewed the notion of the resurrection occurring in real human history as a pagan doctrine.

 

[sotzo]

And did all this occur because theologians wanted to hold on to their faith in a world they beleived did not permit things like bodily resurrections? In other words,, was this simply the best they could do to avoid a thorough-going naturalism?

Sorry for all the general questions. I am trying to understand various positions on the Scriputres, specifically the Pentateuch and it appears that the men I'm reading seem to think an historico-grammatical critique misses the nature of the text a priori. The only way this seems possible (at least where a historico-grammatical is appropriate given the text at hand) is if the events described are void of any true correlation with something actually occuring on this planet.

Thanks again for any insight your can provide.

 

[caddy]

Specifically, where are the most stark and most foundational differences with the Reformed confessions?

Joel

I think a VERY GOOD example of neo-orthodoxy is evident in all of Robert L. Short's books where he does commentary on all of Charles Schulz's Snoopy cartoons. For the most part Short gives insightful commentary to the truth of the Gospel through the lens of the snoopy characters. Short is now a retired Presbyterian minister. He quotes Barth and Bonhoeffer often. Take the bottom quote for example. Directly below is another example of how Barth influenced him concerning the elect:

It is the height of folly to assume that "Jesus accepts people for what they are." Again, the invitation to "come to me" is not extended to one and all, but only to those "who labor and are heavy-laden." "Unless you become like a children," "unless you repent," "unless one is born anew," "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood," "unless you believe that I am he," "unless you abide in me," unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Do any of these stipulations sound as if Christ "accepts people for what they are"? It is true that God was in Christ reconciling the entire world to himself. Finally, therefore, all men will enter and be accepted into God's kingdom of heaven. But we are now abandoned from the knowledge of this acceptance "unless..."

in another spot:

The final outcome, however, as Schulz pointed out in the above statement, is "that everything is going to be all right with God, nevertheless." For it is essential to understand that God has already forgiven and elected all men to salvation "not with a natural Therefore, but with a miraculous Nevertheless" (Barth.) p.146 The Parables of Peanuts. Robert L. Short.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And did all this occur because theologians wanted to hold on to their faith in a world they beleived did not permit things like bodily resurrections? In other words,, was this simply the best they could do to avoid a thorough-going naturalism?

Sorry for all the general questions. I am trying to understand various positions on the Scriputres, specifically the Pentateuch and it appears that the men I'm reading seem to think an historico-grammatical critique misses the nature of the text a priori. The only way this seems possible (at least where a historico-grammatical is appropriate given the text at hand) is if the events described are void of any true correlation with something actually occuring on this planet.

Thanks again for any insight your can provide.

I wish I could bring some details to my mind but there were some schools of philosophy that talked about a ditch between faith and reason and that it was impossible for God to enter real human history. His (and Brunner's theology) is a way to get over the ditch. If you go to RTS on iTunes U there are some free podcasts on the History of Philosophy and Christian Thought. Just download the one on Barth and Brunner and you'll get a snapshot.

 

[k.seymore]

If you go to RTS on iTunes U there are some free podcasts on the History of Philosophy and Christian Thought. Just download the one on Barth and Brunner and you'll get a snapshot.

Do you know which trackit is... they are numbered instead of named, and I don't haven enough bandwidth to download all 36 and figure it out.
Thanks!
-Casey

 

[sotzo]

And did all this occur because theologians wanted to hold on to their faith in a world they beleived did not permit things like bodily resurrections? In other words,, was this simply the best they could do to avoid a thorough-going naturalism?

Sorry for all the general questions. I am trying to understand various positions on the Scriputres, specifically the Pentateuch and it appears that the men I'm reading seem to think an historico-grammatical critique misses the nature of the text a priori. The only way this seems possible (at least where a historico-grammatical is appropriate given the text at hand) is if the events described are void of any true correlation with something actually occuring on this planet.

Thanks again for any insight your can provide.

I wish I could bring some details to my mind but there were some schools of philosophy that talked about a ditch between faith and reason and that it was impossible for God to enter real human history. His (and Brunner's theology) is a way to get over the ditch. If you go to RTS on iTunes U there are some free podcasts on the History of Philosophy and Christian Thought. Just download the one on Barth and Brunner and you'll get a snapshot.

Will do. I'm intrigued by the neo-orthodox movement because I can't see how they get around the fact that if "Christ is not raised, we are to be pitied more than all men." Perhaps they see that as Paul referring to a resurrection of just spiritual and not bodily proportions.

Thanks again...will definately check out iTunes.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well they say that Christ is raised but they speak about it as an abstraction. They believe that real faith is supra-temporal but they'll use all the words of orthodoxy.

I thought I would learn something by reading a ton of Barth's stuff last year. It was a waste of time. I should have read something more useful. I felt like throwing his books through windows regularly because his double-speak is maddening.

I was just thinking the other day about why people always want to follow after some theologian that is going to unpack the Scriptures in a completely obscure way. I think you really need to be a really good philosopher to even follow Barth about what the real meaning of things is. You can't just follow Paul's arguments but you have to see him as a dialectical philosopher.

 

[etexas]

It should be added that though Barth is the Godfather of neo-orthoxy....different "schools" of thought and interpretation have emerged from him. Some sound like old school "classic" liberals.....some are almost Deists...some sound almost orthodox....until you start pushing the semantics.