# What Did Karl barth mean by God Being Wholly other?



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2018)

What Did Karl barth mean by God Being Wholly other?

And how does that description affect how Reformed have seen God as to his essential being then?

Also, how would his views on the revelation of God as found in the scriptures and in Christ agree/disagree with traditional Reformed views?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 14, 2018)

*Moderator Note:*

OP above has been edited (adding the substance of the thread's title), per my previous post on proper creation of opening posts in a new thread:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...gnoring-the-title-in-your-opening-post.95143/

In particular:
"Moreover, what is to follow in an opening post in a new thread should *not be* a grammatical continuation of the title of the thread. The title is the title, not an introductory clause to follow in a post."​
In the original OP above, the opening sentence was:

"And how does that description affect how Reformed have seen God as to his essential being then?"

Note that the words "_that description_" forces the reader to track down the thread title to make some sense of what is being referred to by the phrase "that description". Moreover, if this OP is quoted later in the thread, the reader has no context and must search out the context. Let's make things easier on the reader.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 14, 2018)

To Barth _wholly other_ meant nothing about God corresponds to anything in humanity. Accordingly, per Barth, we can really understand nothing about God; doing so would be a form of mental idolatry seeking to enslave God in our finitude. No propositionals about God are possible, for the boundary between God and man is impermeable.

Encounters with Jesus Christ, the revelation of God, is but mystical, not something describable propositionally, for the encounter is subjective and ineffable.

In effect, per the dialectical Barth, Our Lord is the revelation that never truly enter creation, but merely _touches us as a tangent touches a circle – that is without truly touching it_. Why? Per Barth, "_The Epistle to the Romans is a revelation of the unknown God; God chooses to come to man, not man to God. Even after the revelation man cannot know God, for he is ever the unknown God. In manifesting himself to man he is farther away than before._" [see Barth, _The Epistle to the Romans_ (1918; 1921)].

Barth viewed theology as special kind of history, _geschichte, _which is never to be confused with the earthly, real world history, _historie_. Accordingly, while Barth can assert, on the one hand, to Carl Henry that Our Lord's life is unobservable by our natural eyes, on the other hand Barth can assert to Lewis Smedes that the tomb of Jesus Christ was indeed empty after the resurrection. Barth's dialectic permitted him to speak double-mindedly, for Our Lord never entered the _historie_ (real world), yet rose again in the _geschichte._



Spoiler: Recommended Method of Reading Barth



In my years in a RCC seminary and the SoJ, Barth's _Church Dogmatics_ was required reading. His mystical approaches were natural fits with Rome's theologies and dogma, wherein everything is quite fluid.

My standard answer for reading Barth follows:

1. Read The Doctrine of God: The Election of God; The Command of God first (Volume II, Part 2)

2. Next read all of Volume IV Chronologically
Volume IV Part 1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation
Volume IV Part 2: Doctrine of Reconciliation: Jesus Christ the Servant As Lord
Volume IV Part 3, 1st and 2nd halves: Doctrine of Reconciliation: Jesus Christ the True Witness
Volume IV Part 4: Doctrine of Reconciliation: The Foundation of the Christian Life (Baptism) (was never finished and can be skipped as it is not one of his finest efforts)

By the time you finish with the above, you will be smart enough about the man to decide where you want to go next. My favorite would be to read Volume II Part 1: The Doctrine of God: The Knowledge of God; The Reality of God.

But, having said all of that, I recommend the reader find Webster's _Karl Barth_ (see here) for a starter read to get the lay of the land.

See also:
https://academic.logos.com/breaking-barth-five-tips-from-the-experts/



Lastly, the Barth fan boys at https://barthandtheboyz.blogspot.com/, always seeking to rehabilitate Barth, claim the following as Barth’s contributions to theological thought:


Spoiler



1. Humanity and our humanness is not based upon itself.
2. All theologies are but human devices.
3. What will be accomplished in us has _already been accomplished_ by God in Christ.
4. We cannot earn what has already been accomplished.
5. The movement of God in our lives occurs in the moment(s) of proclamation, whether spoken or written by student and teacher alike.
6. Man never escapes his humanity.
7. Faith is not the product of reason.
8. Systematic theology denies the movement of God. Solving interpretative problems is the very moment God does his best work. God loves John Piper or NT Wright or [even] Karl Barth, but the written word, prayer, the dynamic and irresistible influence of the Indwelling Christ (irresistible to a believer), give us all the opportunity we need for growth, God's way.
9. Theology is as much a science as is anything associated with the natural sciences.
10. Theology is the church talking to itself about God.
11. The Living Word of God is the historical and risen Christ.
12. Christ is the only objective self-revelation of God.
13. An abstract doctrine of God has no place in the Christian realm; only a doctrine of God and man, a doctrine of the commerce and communion between God and man.
14. Man alienated from God has no idea as to what it is to be truly human. All that we know about our humanity or the God we serve comes from the self-revelation of God, Himself.
15. God does not cease to call alienated man.
16. God wants man to be His creature, to be His partner.
17. God wants cosmos, not chaos; He wants man to receive and administer justice.
18. Human freedom is not freedom to choose but "the freedom to obey."
19. A free theologian will be found ready, always, to begin his thinking at the beginning thus escaping the barrier to fresh thought that is our bias, whether well founded or not.
20. God has accomplished the reconciliation of things. We tend to deny this because we see the reverberating results of "the fall," but reconciliation has been accomplished and we await the calm that will follow. (Col 1).
21. Salvation is ours to lose. 
22. Discipleship is ours to practice. 
23. His blessings are ours to receive; many such blessing are ours to receive regardless of status or our relationship with Him.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> To Barth _wholly other_ meant nothing about God corresponds to anything in humanity. Accordingly, per Barth, we can really understand nothing about God; doing so would be a form of mental idolatry seeking to enslave God in our finitude. No propositionals about God are possible, for the boundary between God and man is impermeable.
> 
> Encounters with Jesus Christ, the revelation of God, is but mystical, not something describable propositionally, for the encounter is subjective and ineffable.
> 
> ...


Did he also view then the scriptures as being a witness to God only in the sense that the Holy Spirit would make them come alive to us once now saved? So not the real word of God until that point?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2018)

McCormack's


Dachaser said:


> Did he also view then the scriptures as being a witness to God only in the sense that the Holy Spirit would make them come alive to us once now saved? So not the real word of God until that point?



More or less. He didn't want to say the following proposition:

"The Bible is the Word of God"

Because the word of God = God, and if the Bible is the Word of God, then we make God a predicate, and in Barth's reasoning, God is the subject, not the predicate. God is the initiator, not the receiver.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## augustacarguy (Apr 14, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> McCormack's
> 
> 
> More or less. He didn't want to say the following proposition:
> ...



Schoolhouse rock says, “Mister Morton is the subject of the 
sentence, and what the predicate says, 
he does.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 14, 2018)

His view that the scriptures contain the word of God is also troubling leaving man to judge what is and isn't His word.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 17, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> McCormack's
> 
> 
> More or less. He didn't want to say the following proposition:
> ...


So Karl Barth was not willing to accept the full inspiration by the Holy Spirit for the sacred scriptures?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 17, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> His view that the scriptures contain the word of God is also troubling leaving man to judge what is and isn't His word.


I think that his take was that it became the word of God only if/when the Holy Spirit makes the scriptures come alive to us.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So Karl Barth was not willing to accept the full inspiration by the Holy Spirit for the sacred scriptures?



Probably not, but then neither did anyone else in Continental Europe outside of the Schilder branch of the Dutch Church.

The irony is that Barth was actually considered conservative by the old-school liberals.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 17, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Probably not, but then neither did anyone else in Continental Europe outside of the Schilder branch of the Dutch Church.
> 
> The irony is that Barth was actually considered conservative by the old-school liberals.


I thought that the majority viewpoint among Reformed and others of that time was the full inspiration of the Bible, as that can really watered down starting when German critical theology, and later on here in the US big time in 1960's/70's?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I thought that the majority viewpoint among Reformed and others of that time was the full inspiration of the Bible, as that can really watered down starting when German critical theology, and later on here in the US big time in 1960's/70's?



Germany was hard liberal at least by the middle of the 1800s. North America was hard liberal at least by the 1920s when they kicked Machen out.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 17, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Germany was hard liberal at least by the middle of the 1800s. North America was hard liberal at least by the 1920s when they kicked Machen out.


I think that was when the mainline churches fell to that error regarding the scriptures, but think that many of the Fundamental/Baptist /Presbyterians churches and schools held out much longer, as they really started to fall in 1970's, at the time of The battle for the Bible was written, as when Fuller Seminary moved to a limited inspiration viewpoint.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I think that was when the mainline churches fell to that error regarding the scriptures, but think that many of the Fundamental/Baptist /Presbyterians churches and schools held out much longer, as they really started to fall in 1970's, at the time of The battle for the Bible was written, as when Fuller Seminary moved to a limited inspiration viewpoint.



Perhaps, but since Barth was in Europe, and I mentioned that he was considered a conservative, we are talking about Europe


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 17, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Perhaps, but since Barth was in Europe, and I mentioned that he was considered a conservative, we are talking about Europe


Interesting how Barth was viewed as being really conservative for his time, but many of us would now not see him as that much of a conservative, especially in regards to his views on scriptures.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 17, 2018)

Barth put the "neo" in neo-orthodoxy. So to the liberals, he looked conservative, but to those who hold a WCF view of the scripture, his theology deserved scrutiny. I think he has to be engaged academically, but he doesn't have to be loved.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 18, 2018)

jwithnell said:


> Barth put the "neo" in neo-orthodoxy. So to the liberals, he looked conservative, but to those who hold a WCF view of the scripture, his theology deserved scrutiny. I think he has to be engaged academically, but he doesn't have to be loved.


He was one of the most influential theologians of the Past Century, but not the best, as he denied the viewpoints of the Confessions, and more importantly, the scriptures themselves in regards to their inspiration.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Apr 28, 2018)

For those interested I put up a few articles by Dr. Cornelius Van Til addressing Barth on my blog.

Karl Barth on Scripture
Karl Barth on Creation
Karl Barth and Historic Christianity

And here are a few old recordings by Van Til addressing Barth

DOWNLOAD Christ and Human Thought:: Karl Barth, part 1 – Part: 17 of 28
DOWNLOAD Christ and Human Thought:: Karl Barth, part 2 – Part: 18 of 28
DOWNLOAD Christ and Human Thought:: Barth & Modern Theology – Part: 19 of 28
DOWNLOAD Christ and Human Thought:: Critique of Neo-Orthodoxy Part 1 – Part: 20 of 28
DOWNLOAD Christ and Human Thought:: Critique of Neo-Orthodoxy Part 2 – Part: 21 

Thankful we had Dr. Van Til to help us from falling down rabbit holes such as these.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

Apologist4Him said:


> For those interested I put up a few articles by Dr. Cornelius Van Til addressing Barth on my blog.
> 
> Karl Barth on Scripture
> Karl Barth on Creation
> ...


Karl barth was very smart, but he does not seem to have been very biblical though.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Apr 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Karl barth was very smart, but he does not seem to have been very biblical though.



Correct, I'll share a quote from an article on Reformed Forum (link to article):

"Barth, no less than Thomas, fails to properly maintain the creator-creature distinction. And with that, he—no less than Thomas—fails to properly maintain the antithesis between believer and unbeliever (since grace is common to all). This gives the unbeliever a certain kind of autonomy and libertarian freedom to believe as he wants about God. Barth, in some ways, out-scholasticizes and out-rationalizes even Thomas himself! If nature _is _grace for Barth then all theology is natural theology, even while it is at the same time gracious theology. If Barth were consistent with his theology, then there really could be no _Nein! _to natural theology, but only a full and unequivocal yes and amen."

Barths brillance is especially tempting to the intellectually inclined. There's also this bit of controversy surrounding him. "In 1924, he met Charlotte von Kirschbaum (“Lollo”) who later became his long-time assistant and confidante. In 1929 Lollo moved in with the Barth family. This marked the beginning of a difficult 35-year-long household arrangement between Barth, his wife Nelly, and Lollo, putting a strain on everyone involved." source


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

Apologist4Him said:


> Correct, I'll share a quote from an article on Reformed Forum (link to article):
> 
> "Barth, no less than Thomas, fails to properly maintain the creator-creature distinction. And with that, he—no less than Thomas—fails to properly maintain the antithesis between believer and unbeliever (since grace is common to all). This gives the unbeliever a certain kind of autonomy and libertarian freedom to believe as he wants about God. Barth, in some ways, out-scholasticizes and out-rationalizes even Thomas himself! If nature _is _grace for Barth then all theology is natural theology, even while it is at the same time gracious theology. If Barth were consistent with his theology, then there really could be no _Nein! _to natural theology, but only a full and unequivocal yes and amen."
> 
> Barths brillance is especially tempting to the intellectually inclined. There's also this bit of controversy surrounding him. "In 1924, he met Charlotte von Kirschbaum (“Lollo”) who later became his long-time assistant and confidante. In 1929 Lollo moved in with the Barth family. This marked the beginning of a difficult 35-year-long household arrangement between Barth, his wife Nelly, and Lollo, putting a strain on everyone involved." source


I have heard it stated that one time when Barth wa solder, he was invited to speak , and someone asked him what was the single greatest theological truth he knew, he answered by singing "Jesus loves me, this I Know, as the Bible tells me so"


----------



## Apologist4Him (Apr 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I have heard it stated that one time when Barth wa solder, he was invited to speak , and someone asked him what was the single greatest theological truth he knew, he answered by singing "Jesus loves me, this I Know, as the Bible tells me so"



Oh the irony eh?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 28, 2018)

Apologist4Him said:


> Oh the irony eh?


Indeed, for how could he even know if that was really true?


----------

