# Neo-orthodoxy, anything to learn?



## arapahoepark (Jun 1, 2014)

Is there anything we can learn from neo orthodoxy? Its just been a question I have had lately since someone said TF torrance had a form of theosis in his writings. I have been looking some stuff up on Barth and the Torrances and I just find it weird or ironic they'll find faults with previous reformed theologies, and quote church fathers or councils against them when they themselves don't really believe the Bible is God's word only a witness to it and/or a legend.
So is there anything neo orthodoxy (or any of its theologians)as given the church other than the enemy of my enemy is my friend with regard to liberalism?


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 2, 2014)

Neo Orthodoxy is the offspring of Karl Barth. Barth was reacting against the rising theological liberalism of his day. Barth's problem was that he waged his war with a paper sword, a nuanced hat tip to the Bible with a fanciful redefining of history. 

For the definitive refutation of Barth and his brethren see Carl F H Henry's magnum opus GOD, REVELATION, & AUTHORITY.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2014)

I've noticed a difference between "neo-orthodoxy" and some of Barth's later expositors. While I am not a Barthian, it might be helpful to point out that Barth didn't necessarily agree with the other neo-Orthodox (his famous "Nein" debate with Brunner).

I highly recommend Bruce McCormack's _Orthodox and Modern_


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 2, 2014)

An example of Barth's neo-orthodoxy is his frequent explanation that the Bible (as inspired, written and translated) is not the "Word of God"' objectively speaking. According to Barth it CAN BECOME the Word of God upon the faithful response of the reader on an individual basis.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 2, 2014)

rbcbob said:


> An example of Barth's neo-orthodoxy is his frequent explanation that the Bible (as inspired, written and translated) is not the "Word of God"' objectively speaking. According to Barth it CAN BECOME the Word of God upon the faithful response of the reader on an individual basis.



I understand what you are saying. Rather, I am asking if the neos have contributed anything worth while in theology. As I said before I find neos to be rather ironic when, for example, Torrance accuses those who believe in limited atonement of believing a false God and being nestorians or that his brother was instrumental in getting rid of the wcf when they themselves don't seem to believe the Bible is the word of God in any meaningful sense. Since it only becomes the wors of God isn't the whole of their theology rather subjective and biblicist?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2014)

While I have read a couple thousand pages of Barth and McCormack, I am NOT a Torrance fan and I don't really care too much for Torrance's modern day disciples.


----------



## MW (Jun 2, 2014)

arap said:


> Is there anything we can learn from neo orthodoxy?



How to pretend to be orthodox without being orthodox.

But being is much better than pretending.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 2, 2014)

arap said:


> Is there anything we can learn from neo orthodoxy? Its just been a question I have had lately since someone said TF torrance had a form of theosis in his writings. I have been looking some stuff up on Barth and the Torrances and I just find it weird or ironic they'll find faults with previous reformed theologies, and quote church fathers or councils against them when they themselves don't really believe the Bible is God's word only a witness to it and/or a legend.
> So is there anything neo orthodoxy (or any of its theologians)as given the church other than the enemy of my enemy is my friend with regard to liberalism?



There is a volume called "Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques" with an introduction by Carl Trueman, and contributions by Michael Horton and Donald MacLeod, but I've not read it myself.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 2, 2014)

If you are just looking for a good read, then "nah." But if you are even an amateur student of theology, it's worth paying some attention. At the very least, you'll know what's behind someone saying that the scriptures "contain" the truth. Barth was a giant of mid-20th century theology, particularly in Germany. Some of his influence reaches beyond neo-orthodoxy, such as his consideration of relationship in the Imago Dei doctrine. Stick close by the scriptures and the definitions established there, but at least know something about what these guys are saying.


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 2, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > Is there anything we can learn from neo orthodoxy?
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 2, 2014)

I think it illustrates the bankruptcy of autonomous human reason as it attempts to separate God from His creation and make our philosophical inquiry the ground of truth. Barth was a committed dialetical thinker so the history we inhabit could not be the realm in which God would reveal Himself to us. Though he tried to break free from Liberalism, he still rejected a fundamental theological foundation that our knowledge is by way of Revelation - both special and natural. We can know no fact except in relation to the Creator who made and sustained it. God's knowledge of Himself is of one kind and our knowledge of Him and the Creation is by way of accomodation to us and we have no full fruition of it apart from Him.

Incidentally, a modern example is William Lane Craig who approaches theology from the standpoint that God and man approach the universe from a collection of brute facts that need to be investigated. Our knowledge of things, according to Craig, is of the same kind as God's but just differs in degrees and so Craig believes he can start with philosophy. By starting with philosophy, he can reason to what is true of the good and then use that as a grid by which he then embarks on theological investigation. The Scriptures are then open to "fruitfully" support whatever philosophical conclusions he made as a result of the use of the tools of reason.

Van Til:

"The very idea of Kant's Copernican revolution was that the autonomous mind itself must assume the responsibility for making all factual differentiation and logical validation. To such a mind the God of Christianity cannot speak. Such a mind will hear no voice but its own."

What can we learn from Barth? That when you increasingly hear people talking about what a good God would or would not do according to their own ideas of what good is they are operating according to the same standard of autonomous reason. Men who try to apprehend God by speculation will be stuck in a labyrinth that inexorably leads to the worship of the God of their own making.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 2, 2014)

BTW, I'm now following the connection between theosis and neo-orthodoxy. Theosis is an ancient doctrine that in modern times is more associated w/the eastern church. You can find traces of it -- though not by name -- among some Puritans.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 2, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> BTW, I'm now following the connection between theosis and neo-orthodoxy. Theosis is an ancient doctrine that in modern times is more associated w/the eastern church. You can find traces of it -- though not by name -- among some Puritans.



Who are these puritans? Names?

Anyway thanks for your responses, very interesting.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 2, 2014)

I have never understood the fascination with Torrance. Taking something like 23-25 semester units at the undergraduate and graduate levels under one of his disciples convinced me not to read any more Torrance than absolutely necessary. My wife grew to distrust the field of dogmatics entirely after her brief brush with this same disciple of Torrance in one class.

Barth was raised in a kind of hidebound liberalism that was the bitter fruit of the Englightenment. Even his rejection of it left enormous problems for his theology. Academic theology considered Barth "Reformed." However, his rejections of large parts of Calvin and confessionalism generally, make him a kind of "Reformed" theologian that few on the PB would recognize. 

For a critique of Barth, I strongly recommend C.F.H. Henry's _God, Revelation, and Authority_. In terms of sheer size, it tackles the problems of Barth from so many vantage points and angles. And, as one who had been publically embarrassed by Barth in a famous public encounter in front of 200 American academics, Henry showed remarkable balance and fairness in his criticism of Barth. However, for an ex-journalist, Henry was famously "dense" and so detailed and erudite as to be nearly impenetrable in places. Van Til penned a detailed analysis. However, his strong rejection of Barth and failure to give him the benefit of the doubt anywhere led many critics to dismiss Van Til out of hand as misreading Barth's theological project.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 2, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Incidentally, a modern example is William Lane Craig who approaches theology from the standpoint that God and man approach the universe from a collection of brute facts that need to be investigated. Our knowledge of things, according to Craig, is of the same kind as God's but just differs in degrees and so Craig believes he can start with philosophy. By starting with philosophy, he can reason to what is true of the good and then use that as a grid by which he then embarks on theological investigation. The Scriptures are then open to "fruitfully" support whatever philosophical conclusions he made as a result of the use of the tools of reason.


Yes, a very important point.


----------



## Philip (Jun 2, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> BTW, I'm now following the connection between theosis and neo-orthodoxy. Theosis is an ancient doctrine that in modern times is more associated w/the eastern church. You can find traces of it -- though not by name -- among some Puritans.



And by name in Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter. You'll also find traces in John Owen, who is clearly familiar with Gregory of Nazianzus.

What can one learn from Barth? A lot, actually. Barth is one of my heroes for a number of reasons: his resistance to Nazism on Scriptural grounds. His work in dogmatics which brought Trinitarian theology to the fore. His rejection of synergism. His problems are not to be dismissed, but there is always value in engaging with a great mind.

In a certain way, he was the European Machen--the difference was that he felt that he had to start from scratch in the aftermath of liberalism, as opposed to Machen who had the tradition of Old Princeton to draw upon.


----------



## MW (Jun 2, 2014)

Philip said:


> In a certain way, he was the European Machen--the difference was that he felt that he had to start from scratch in the aftermath of liberalism, as opposed to Machen who had the tradition of Old Princeton to draw upon.



That is a false portrayal. He was constantly interacting with reformed materials from the past and consciously rejected them in a systemic fashion. He was a meta-theologian with an agenda, not someone struggling towards orthodoxy. His contributions and "value" only serve to make his work that much more dangerous than your average theologian.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 2, 2014)

Thank you Rev. Winzer. 

Barth is dangerous precisely because he sounds orthodox in so many places, when he actually is not.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 3, 2014)

Barth's domestic arrangements, also, with his Charlotte, were more un-orthodox than any other type of orthodox.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> BTW, I'm now following the connection between theosis and neo-orthodoxy. Theosis is an ancient doctrine that in modern times is more associated w/the eastern church. You can find traces of it -- though not by name -- among some Puritans.



Barth rejects theosis in its Eastern form. If McCormack's reading is accurate, and I think it is, Barth opts for the more biblical rendering of exaltation, not divinization. Tillich and Brunner may or may not accept theosis. I don't know much about them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> I have never understood the fascination with Torrance. Taking something like 23-25 semester units at the undergraduate and graduate levels under one of his disciples convinced me not to read any more Torrance than absolutely necessary. My wife grew to distrust the field of dogmatics entirely after her brief brush with this same disciple of Torrance in one class.
> 
> Barth was raised in a kind of hidebound liberalism that was the bitter fruit of the Englightenment. Even his rejection of it left enormous problems for his theology. Academic theology considered Barth "Reformed." However, his rejections of large parts of Calvin and confessionalism generally, make him a kind of "Reformed" theologian that few on the PB would recognize.
> 
> For a critique of Barth, I strongly recommend C.F.H. Henry's _God, Revelation, and Authority_. In terms of sheer size, it tackles the problems of Barth from so many vantage points and angels. And, as one who had been publically embarrassed by Barth in a famous public encounter in front of 200 American academics, Henry showed remarkable balance and fairness in his criticism of Barth. However, for an ex-journalist, Henry was famously "dense" and so detailed and erudite as to be nearly impenetrable in places. Van Til penned a detailed analysis. However, his strong rejection of Barth and failure to give him the benefit of the doubt anywhere led many critics to dismiss Van Til out of hand as misreading Barth's theological project.



If I recall correctly, Van Til wrote two volumes on Barth. It's been years since I've interacted with either, but the second one seems more accurate than the first, since in the first one he didn't (or couldn't?) deal with Barth's entire corpus.


----------



## Philip (Jun 3, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> He was a meta-theologian with an agenda, not someone struggling towards orthodoxy. His contributions and "value" only serve to make his work that much more dangerous than your average theologian.



I would rather not read with a hermaneutic of suspicion. I would agree that he doesn't think that old orthodoxy is tenable because of the rise of science, and a latent Kantianism in his own thinking. But I do think that he is trying to recover the Gospel, however flawed the attempt.

And no, I would never recommend him to those not already confessionally well-grounded.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 3, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> Barth's domestic arrangements, also, with his Charlotte, were more un-orthodox than any other type of orthodox.







It is amazing how his hero-struck biographer and good friend glosses over this fact. The closest we get to the truth is when he says that Barth inviting his "assistant" to live with his family for 35 years and to take her (rather than his wife) to the mountains for the summer each year put quite a "strain" on Frau Barth and the children. His mother and friends also objected to the unseemliness of the arrangement. And, even Lollo (Barth's pet name for her) wrote to Barth's sister that her presence seemed to create or at least exacerbate an alienation between Dr. and Mrs. Barth. It is almost as if Nelly was his wife for procreation and household management and Lollo was his wife for companionship and intellectual pursuits. If I remember the chronology correctly, when she became demented and was no longer his partner in the work of Church Dogmatics, CD stopped. Because of her close working relationship with Barth in his work, she learned Greek, Hebrew, and Latin to facilitate the collaboration.

I have always read Barth's soaring rhetorical statements on Genesis, the establishment of marriage, and the creation of man in the _imago dei _with respect to the bi-polarity of the sexes in light of his domestic approach to "living out" his marriage in a most "unusual" manner. Frankly, the latter dimmed my appreciation for the former.

In any case, Barth's children either sided with Lollo, calling her Auntie, or decided that they had to stand with their mother and be alienated from their dad. An historical anecdote testifies to Nelly's character in that after Karl's death Nelly visited the now demented Charlotte in the nursing home almost daily until Lollo's death in 1975.

As to the "value" of Barth's writing, with 9,000 pages of the Church Dogmatics and many shorter works, it would be impossible NOT to mine something of importance out of them. Barth was a towering figure in theology during the last century and his work has been justly called "magisterial." However, with so much important material that is orthodox unread by me, Barth is simply not on my radar any longer. Unless you are teaching modern theology or must interact with Barth for academic reasons, why waste your time picking the gems out of a mountain of modern manure? [that last comment was a bit "severe" but the alliteration was irresistible!]


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 3, 2014)

Henry Scougal's _The Life of God in the Soul of Man_ was one work I had in mind on that bumps up against theosis without exploring it as a doctrine per se.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2014)

Philip said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, I'm now following the connection between theosis and neo-orthodoxy. Theosis is an ancient doctrine that in modern times is more associated w/the eastern church. You can find traces of it -- though not by name -- among some Puritans.
> ...



I've always been a bit of a stickler, I suppose, about legacy. I remember going to the top of a mile long hill in Korea one time with a very famous Buddhist temple on the top with some statue that was a couple of millenia old. I couldn't appreciate the architecture or the statue because the idolatry bugged me so much.

Something that one learns when one visits Israel is that King Ahab built a remarkable aquaduct from the Samaritan capital to a water source. It made it nigh impossible for invading armies to discover where the water source was and permitted the Northern Kingdom to hold out for a very long time during siege. It's an architectural achievement on a massive scale.

What do the Scriptures say about Ahab's amazing project?

I've just never been impressed with achievement aimed at the wrong ends. It's so much wasted genius in my estimation.


----------



## Philip (Jun 3, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I've just never been impressed with achievement aimed at the wrong ends. It's so much wasted genius in my estimation.



Oddly enough I think he's aiming at the right ends, but his foundations are so flawed that even his monumental achievement fails to realize them. The aim of his project, which is a recovery of Reformed theology, is excellent, but his post-Kantian and post-enlightenment assumptions lead him to reject those things which would make this project successful.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2014)

At least Barth tried on the Filioque. He's probably written more on it than any recent figure. And while his Trinitarianism didn't always work out (per his take on Revelation), at least he saw the importance of it, something modern evangelicals haven't always done.


----------



## Philip (Jun 3, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> At least Barth tried on the Filioque. He's probably written more on it than any recent figure. And while his Trinitarianism didn't always work out (per his take on Revelation), at least he saw the importance of it, something modern evangelicals haven't always done.



Actually, Barth convinced me on the filioque. Ironically enough his work on it convinced me that it is crucial to a doctrine of inerrancy and that if he were really consistent in his embrace of it, he would come to the same conclusions that we do.


----------



## MW (Jun 3, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> Henry Scougal's _The Life of God in the Soul of Man_ was one work I had in mind on that bumps up against theosis without exploring it as a doctrine per se.



There is a mystical strain in seventeenth century ritualistic episcopalianism which borrows from the eastern fathers, and especially their view of "ascent." I think this contrasts strongly with Puritan emphasis on the covenant of grace as divine and voluntary condescension. Ironically the mystical Anglican tradition is mixed with Puritan writings in Wesley's "Christian Library," although the Puritan selection tends to focus more on moralistic and mystic topics.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2014)

Philip said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I've just never been impressed with achievement aimed at the wrong ends. It's so much wasted genius in my estimation.
> ...



Then it wasn't aimed at the right ends. His foundation was tilted so one might argue that, as far as he was concerned, he was attempting to aim at a target but it still ended up widely missing the mark. We commonly refer to that as sin. I'm not saying I'm a better man than he but I've simply grown to increasingly appreciate that it is not the wise of the world that inherit the kingdom of God and we're commanded frequently to take warning from them and not get too engrossed out how impressive they are.

I simply cannot accept that it was the Spirit of Christ that was enlightening his thinking that has led so many millions to destruction. If you've ever had a relative die and sat through the funeral officiated by a neo-Orthodox preacher then you might re-consider how "monumental" Barth was.


----------



## ZackF (Jun 3, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I've always been a bit of a stickler, I suppose, about legacy. I remember going to the top of a mile long hill in Korea one time with a very famous Buddhist temple on the top with some statue that was a couple of millenia old. I couldn't appreciate the architecture or the statue because the idolatry bugged me so much.



I agree with your posts in this thread to an extent but I have much less of a problem admiring people that are miles from Christianity rather than tag alongs bearing poor Christianity. I can appreciate a Buddhist temple in an aesthetic sense but not a Second Commandment violation much anymore. What little of Barth I've read reminds of Hans Urs Von Balthasar from my Catholic days, the conservative wing of modern liberal theology. He is extremely wordy but not in the dense Puritan sense.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2014)

KS_Presby said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I've always been a bit of a stickler, I suppose, about legacy. I remember going to the top of a mile long hill in Korea one time with a very famous Buddhist temple on the top with some statue that was a couple of millenia old. I couldn't appreciate the architecture or the statue because the idolatry bugged me so much.
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the intellect. It's rather like the analogy that Kuyper used to describe the Fall not as a loss of the glory of the image of God in man but that's it's turned to the wrong ends. He compares it to the Admiral of an armada who keeps the ships in perfect order not to serve the King but, because he has switched allegiances, that he may attack him. I can marvel at the engineering of the battleship but still bemoan the folly that it is being used in the service of the enemy.

I am in a very technical field and am around many, many brilliant men and women. I often find myself dizzied at their capacities and am sometimes even allured by what I might accomplish if I gave so much to it. But then I see what they aim their lives at and it is really sad. If I get to Israel, I'll want to see the aquaduct and will marvel at its engineering but, underlying it all, I will be really sad to think the genius was ultimately wasted. Those who build their houses on shifting sands often have some pretty magnficent structures. I've been to the real Babylon and it's now mostly desert.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 16, 2014)

If anyone is interested in a different critique of Barth, read Wolfhart Pannenberg's engaging with him in _Systematic Theology_ vol 1. Pannenberg was Barth's student for a while and reading between the lines, I don't think Pannenberg really liked him personally. It's interesting to read his critiques in light of that knowledge.


----------

