# Doctrine of Karl Barth (was he a liberal, heritic, or on some doctrines not orthodox)



## Mayflower (Feb 7, 2006)

Can maybe someone on the board explain me short and simply how we have to consider the doctrine of Barth ? Was he a liberal , heretic, or maybe a orthodox on some doctrine, but on some other doctrine he was not orthodox ?

Was he forexample orthodox on the trinity, salvation the person of Christ.

Are there also some things that we as reformed believers can learn something from Karl Barth ?

At this moment i have no time to read van Til book on Barth.

I hope you can give me response !

Thanks.

Ralph



[Edited on 2-7-2006 by Mayflower]


----------



## raderag (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> Can maybe someone on the board explain me short and simply how we have to consider the doctrine of Barth ? Was he a liberal , heretic, or maybe a orthodox on some doctrine, but on some other doctrine he was not orthodox ?
> 
> Was he forexample orthodox on the trinity, salvation the person of Christ.
> ...



Ralph, Karl Barth is neo-orthodox.

[Edited on 2-7-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 7, 2006)

Dear Brett Rader,

Thanks for the information. Iam not a theologion, but my questiosn is than, is Bath no heretic ? And is he still orthodox concerning the salvation, trinity and the person of Christ. And are there things written by Barth which we as reformed believers can learn from ?


----------



## raderag (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> Dear Brett Rader,
> 
> Thanks for the information. Iam not a theologion, but my questiosn is than, is Bath no heretic ? And is he still orthodox concerning the salvation, trinity and the person of Christ. And are there things written by Barth which we as reformed believers can learn from ?



I am not expert theologian either, but I think Barth is hetrodox in that he doesn't deny most of the essentials of the faith, but does hold some heresy. The thing is that his theology was set apart from the liberalism of the day. I think much of what he posits especially on epistemolology is very troubling. He did not believe the Scriptures were without error. If Barth were alive today, he couldn't be ordained in a conservative reformed denomination.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 7, 2006)

I'm certainly no expert, but I've had some minor exposure to Barth's teaching in class. From what I've heard, Barth gives good criticisms of liberalism, but little else. He's definitely not a liberal.

He has this strange "three-fold" view of revelation, which says that revelation is experienced in personal encounter with Christ. This personal encounter is found in Scripture, preaching, and direct encounter with Christ. In his view, personal encounter is least directly found in Scripture, then a little more directly in preaching, and then direct encounter is the best.

The problem with this view is that it views true revelation as direct and immediate. It ignores the fact that God works through means in revealing himself to us, through Scripture. In reality, there is no such thing as immediate access to God (immediate in the sense of without the use of means, not in the sense of requiring a chain of human mediators), or even to Christ. God revealeled himself in various ways and at various times (Heb. 1:1-2), but always through means.

Barth's position ends up being radically skeptical of means, but rationalistic when it comes to the personal encounter with Christ, as if Christ were immediately and transparently knowable when the encounter takes place. 

This view makes me wonder if the neo-evangelical owes more to Barth than he/she realizes. The whole "I believe in a person, not a doctrine" mentality sounds very Barthian to me.

I don't know if this makes any sense to you, so let me know if I need to explain further.

Brian

[Edited on 2-8-2006 by cultureshock]


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> I'm certainly no expert, but I've had some minor exposure to Barth's teaching in class. From what I've heard, Barth gives good criticisms of liberalism, but little else. He's definitely not a liberal.
> 
> He has this strange "three-fold" view of revelation, which says that revelation is experienced in personal encounter with Christ. This personal encounter is found in Scripture, preaching, and direct encounter with Christ. In his view, personal encounter is least directly found in Scripture, then a little more directly in preaching, and then direct encounter is the best.
> ...



Thanks Brain for your explanation.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 8, 2006)

Not only did Barth believe that the Scriptures were not the Word of God, but he also believed in universal atonement.


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Not only did Barth believe that the Scriptures were not the Word of God, but he also believed in universal atonement.



You mean that he believed that finally everyone will get saved ?


----------



## weinhold (Feb 26, 2006)

Mayflower,

By its very title Van Til's book, Christianity and Barthianism, suggests that Barth's theology was somehow unChristian. Regardless of one's opinion on Barth, I find the following informative. When asked about Van Til's book, Barth himself said, "I do not see my face in his volume," essentially chiding Van Til for misinterpreting his work. When the two met in America years later, Van Til introduced himself to Barth, to which Barth responded, "Oh. I read what you wrote about me, and I forgive you."

Another thing that must be taken into consideration when talking about Barth is that he wrote an immense amount of material. His Church Dogmatics takes up a bookshelf, and he wrote many other articles and volumes. Any attempt to evaluate the whole of Barth's theology is thus extremely complex. One must take into account the development of Barth's thought over the course of his entire life, and thus evaluate his many nuances with care and charity. Unfortunately, this means that simplistic judgments about Barth will always be inadequate. In an effort to remedy this all too common symptom, I would recommend picking up T&T Clark's one volume abridged version of Church Dogmatics, as well as Dogmatics in Outline.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 26, 2006)

Regarding Barth:

short, sweet, and to the point:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=147


----------

