# Karl Barth



## KMK (Apr 3, 2007)

My uncle, a dutch reformed pastor, has recommended "Dogmatics" to me but I cannot imagine getting through it in this lifetime. Has anyone read it? Is it worth the time and $$$$?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 3, 2007)

Ken,

There are shorter books that introduce you to his dogmatics. Bruce recommended a bunch of them to give me a flavor of his thought. I've been working through them for the last few months. The three I really recommend are:

Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 by Bruce L. McCormack

The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth By Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer

The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner by Cornelius Van Til 

Bruce also wrote a paper on him that I'm saving until I finish all the books. I actually am waiting to read Van Til's work last because I've heard he absolutely unloads on Barth.

I sometimes think I'm devoting too much time studying his work but I honestly want to figure out how mainstream folk tick. I never understood how people could ignore clear passages and turn them around in a sophisticated way. I still don't completely understand it. Frankly, Barth speaks in so many elaborate ways that he's really hard to understand. My mind tends to wander when I'm reading ponderous material and I don't really want to invest the time in researching it heavily but I have caught some of the major themes in his thinking.

The first work I cite above was very helpful in outlining Barth's theological development. What is fascinating is how it reveals that liberal training never exposes even scholarly individuals to the writings of the Reformers themselves. It wasn't until years after Barth had earned his PhD and been a pastor for a number of years that he was called to teach Reformed Systematics in Germany and started reading the actual words of the Reformers to understand their view on the Word of God. It didn't completely revamp his theology but had a pretty significant impact. It's also interesting to see how his theology was impacted by his deep commitment to Socialism and how German theologians blind allegiance to their country caused him to become disillusioned with the theology of his youth.

Honestly, when you read Barth there are moments of brilliance. I've thought about lifting some quotes every now and then from him and posting them here just to see how many "Amens" I got before I revealed who wrote them. Of course, he moves on to some strange positions from there and it's just so hard to figure out what he's really trying to say. I honestly just have little patience for theology that keeps itself purposefully obscure and uses overly complex language that makes even the points in Scripture that are meant to be perspicuous accessible only by a trained elite.

With all the reading I have yet to get to, I'll be very glad when I'm done reading his thought.


----------



## Staphlobob (Apr 4, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> There are shorter books that introduce you to his dogmatics.




Agreed. Do NOT purchase the entire set of "Dogmatics." That would be a serious waste of money. When I was in Lutheran Seminary in Gettysburg one of the professors there had earned his PhD under Barth and even he didn't recommend the set unless we were pursuing some particular academic goal. 




> It's also interesting to see how his theology was impacted by his deep commitment to Socialism and how German theologians blind allegiance to their country caused him to become disillusioned with the theology of his youth.



If I'm not mistaken I think some of his pastoral experience also led him towards socialism.



> I honestly just have little patience for theology that keeps itself purposefully obscure and uses overly complex language that makes even the points in Scripture that are meant to be perspicuous accessible only by a trained elite.



Makes me suspicious of the author. Deliberate obfuscation is quite often a sign of dishonesty.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 4, 2007)

KMK said:


> My uncle, a dutch reformed pastor, has recommended "Dogmatics" to me but I cannot imagine getting through it in this lifetime. Has anyone read it? Is it worth the time and $$$$?



Barth is stimulating but must be read with great caution. I studied theology under a leading Barthian scholar in Scotland. 
Check http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH04/10b.html and http://www.schoolofministry.ac.nz/reformed/barthian.htm

For beginners I would recommend 
An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 
Karl Barth and the Christian Message by Colin Brown (Author)


----------



## KMK (Apr 4, 2007)

Thanks all, this has been very helpful.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 5, 2007)

KMK said:


> Thanks all, this has been very helpful.



Since he disparaged the inspiration and authority of the Bible as part of his neo-orthodox views, why waste any time on him?


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

I have never read anything he has written. I have only heard negative stuff about Barth. Doesn't he believe in Universal Atonement??? If my memory serves me correct I think he does believe in universal Atonement. Some that read him correct me if I am wrong on this.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 5, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> I have never read anything he has written. I have only heard negative stuff about Barth. Doesn't he believe in Universal Atonement??? If my memory serves me correct I think he does believe in universal Atonement. Some that read him correct me if I am wrong on this.


The Berkouwer work deals pretty extensively with this. Barth denies that he does but it's pretty inescapable. His idea is that everyone is elect in Christ. He speaks as if there is some sort of Divine "No" in the decision not to allow Chaos and sin and that Creation itself is part of God's redemptive plan. He actually talks about something like the impossiblity of unbelief and that man's election and redemption is real but that man can live in a way that denies it.

I don't have his book in front of me so I can't quote it right now. 

Like I said, he speaks in confusing and obscure ways where in one part normal logic would demand he's talking about universal atonement because all are elect in Christ but then he's wishy-washy about whether or not he actually believes that.

There are some men that just eat that stuff up and see that obscurity as a sign of real depth. I see it as a form of wickedness whenever truth is obscured. Calvin is profound and difficult to completely comprehend sometimes but once you understand what he's saying you don't have to worry about him speaking in riddles.


----------



## KMK (Apr 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Calvin is profound and difficult to completely comprehend sometimes but once you understand what he's saying you don't have to worry about him speaking in riddles.



Kind of like reading L.!  

Honestly, because of the posts I have decided I have much more important thiings to read right now.

Question for all: If a writer believes in universal atonement does that mean his writings are automatically viewed as worthless by those on PB?


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

KMK said:


> Kind of like reading L.!
> 
> Honestly, because of the posts I have decided I have much more important thiings to read right now.
> 
> Question for all: If a writer believes in universal atonement does that mean his writings are automatically viewed as worthless by those on PB?



No, I wouldn't say that his writings are worthless. I am just giving my own personal bias/opinion, because of his view of Universal Atonement. Sorry if I came across as being "closed-minded"


----------



## KMK (Apr 5, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> No, I wouldn't say that his writings are worthless. I am just giving my own personal bias/opinion, because of his view of Universal Atonement. Sorry if I came across as being "closed-minded"



I was not implying that you were closed-minded at all. I know that most on PB would be less interested in reading a universal atonement author, but was wondering if that would eliminate him altogether in their minds.

Bookslover said that Barth denies (or at least questions) the inspiration of scripture. If that is true then I have no interest in reading him. But denying a limited atonement only puts me on the fence.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

KMK said:


> I was not implying that you were closed-minded at all. I know that most on PB would be less interested in reading a universal atonement author, but was wondering if that would eliminate him altogether in their minds.
> 
> Bookslover said that Barth denies (or at least questions) the inspiration of scripture. If that is true then I have no interest in reading him. But denying a limited atonement only puts me on the fence.



I didn't know that Barth didn't believe in Inerrancy of Scripture.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 5, 2007)

One thing about Barth is that you can't ignore him. His influence is wide spread. His dialectic/existential theology is still taught in more liberal seminaries. His book on Romans was considered the beginning of the end for old style 19th century liberalism.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 5, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> I didn't know that Barth didn't believe in Inerrancy of Scripture.



To be more specific: Barth did not believe that the Bible is the *objective* Word of the God who speaks to us by propositional revelation. Barth believed that, *subjectively*, the Bible _becomes_ the Word of God when someone reads it at a specific place. For example, if you're reading along in, say, the Gospel of John and, as you read, John 3:16 seems to leap right off the page and impress you in some way, then, for Barth, John 3:16 is, _on that day and at that moment_, the Word of God _for you_. The next day, you could read the same passage and you'd read John 3:16 and it would be just like any other verse, with no impression being made.

It's a totally subjective approach, and a subtle way of placing man (and his subjective impressions) above, and in judgment on, the Word of God.

Barth died in 1968 at the age of 82.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 5, 2007)

bookslover said:


> To be more specific: Barth did not believe that the Bible is the *objective* Word of the God who speaks to us by propositional revelation. Barth believed that, *subjectively*, the Bible _becomes_ the Word of God when someone reads it at a specific place. For example, if you're reading along in, say, the Gospel of John and, as you read, John 3:16 seems to leap right off the page and impress you in some way, then, for Barth, John 3:16 is, _on that day and at that moment_, the Word of God _for you_. The next day, you could read the same passage and you'd read John 3:16 and it would be just like any other verse, with no impression being made.
> 
> It's a totally subjective approach, and a subtle way of placing man (and his subjective impressions) above, and in judgment on, the Word of God.
> 
> Barth died in 1968 at the age of 82.



Do you think that Barth is responsible for alot of this Christian liberalism today? I go to a very liberal socalled Christian college and the religion department thinks the way you put it! I completely agree that it is a subtle way of placing man above, and in judgment on the Word of God. I guess one can't fully say that Barth is responsible since Gresham Machen was writting about Christianity and Liberalism, back in the 1920's.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 5, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> Do you think that Barth is responsible for alot of this Christian liberalism today? I go to a very liberal socalled Christian college and the religion department thinks the way you put it! I completely agree that it is a subtle way of placing man above, and in judgment on the Word of God. I guess one can't fully say that Barth is responsible since Gresham Machen was writting about Christianity and Liberalism, back in the 1920's.



The type of theological liberalism that Machen described when he published _Christianity and Liberalism_ in 1923 was dying off at that time (murdered by the realities of World War I, among other things), to be replaced, in time, by Barth's (and Brunner's, etc.) neo-orthdoxy. While classic liberalism flat-out denied the inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture, neo-orthodoxy was more subtle, by coming at Scripture in the way I've described. The end result, in my opinion, is the same - man being placed above the Bible as judge.

By the way, a document was discovered among Machen's papers a few years ago in which he gave his opinion of Barth (written in 1929, I believe). It was published in the _Westminster Theological Journal_ sometime in the 1990s, I think.


----------



## KMK (Apr 5, 2007)

I am totally losing interest in him now. Except for the fact, as Mr. Wylie stated, that you are going to be faced with him some day because his ideas are so prominent. If his opinions are as bookslover stated, then he sounds more like Satan than a theologian.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 6, 2007)

bookslover said:


> The type of theological liberalism that Machen described when he published _Christianity and Liberalism_ in 1923 was dying off at that time (murdered by the realities of World War I, among other things), to be replaced, in time, by Barth's (and Brunner's, etc.) neo-orthdoxy. While classic liberalism flat-out denied the inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture, neo-orthodoxy was more subtle, by coming at Scripture in the way I've described. The end result, in my opinion, is the same - man being placed above the Bible as judge.
> 
> By the way, a document was discovered among Machen's papers a few years ago in which he gave his opinion of Barth (written in 1929, I believe). It was published in the _Westminster Theological Journal_ sometime in the 1990s, I think.



I'm interested in looking at that paper, I would like to read that. Do you like Arminianism? I just noticed your avatar saying......


----------



## bookslover (Apr 7, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> Do you like Arminianism? I just noticed your avatar saying......



No, I don't like Arminius (see my signature). It's Rich's doing! I'm trying to figure out a way to get him busted to private...


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 7, 2007)

can find that paper that you mentioned online somewhere?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 7, 2007)

Barth is not for those just learning Reformed theology. He was massively influential in the 20th century and his influence continues to resonate in contemporary theology, particularly among neo-evangelicals.

He thought of himself as Reformed but he was not confessional. He denied the historic and confessional doctrine of Scripture, soteriology, and sacraments (he became a Baptist!), just to name a few.

The great point Van Til made about Barth is that he's a dialectical theologian. He says yes and no about the same thing at the same time. So, he can speak about a topic like an orthodox fellow for a while and then, later, he pulls the string, and it turns out he was only kidding.

He hated Schleiermacher, which is a virtue, but ironically he did something very similar. Where S. reduced all theology to the feeling of divine dependence, Barth reduced all theology to the "revelation moment," a sort of existential encounter with the "Word" that isn't, so far as I can tell, very different from Schleiermacher's program. Barthians scream when I say this stuff, but I'll keep saying it until someone can show me that it's false.

Anyway, that's why Barth's so difficult to read. I think part of him just wanted to be a plain old Reformed guy, but he wasn't willing, unlike CVT, to set fire to Kant et co. 

One has to make a choice and Barth made his. He sides with modernity. Therefore creation is just "saga." It can't be any more than that, a priori, because all modern/reasonable men know that it can't. Same old modernist stuff that he thought he was repudiating.

The Germans get this, but Americans have a hard time letting Barth be a modernist Swiss/German theologian.

rsc


----------



## bookslover (Apr 7, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Barth is not for those just learning Reformed theology. He was massively influential in the 20th century and his influence continues to resonate in contemporary theology, particularly among neo-evangelicals.
> 
> He thought of himself as Reformed but he was not confessional. He denied the historic and confessional doctrine of Scripture, soteriology, and sacraments (he became a Baptist!), just to name a few.
> 
> ...



As I understand it, Barth's father was an orthodox Lutheran pastor. It's too bad that, when Barth got shocked out of his theological liberalism, he found it personally impossible to come all the way back to his father's orthodoxy, instead coming up with neo-orthodoxy as some sort of halfway house between the two. At least Barth loved Mozart...


----------



## Staphlobob (Apr 7, 2007)

bookslover said:


> To be more specific: Barth did not believe that the Bible is the *objective* Word of the God who speaks to us by propositional revelation. Barth believed that, *subjectively*, the Bible _becomes_ the Word of God when someone reads it at a specific place. For example, if you're reading along in, say, the Gospel of John and, as you read, John 3:16 seems to leap right off the page and impress you in some way, then, for Barth, John 3:16 is, _on that day and at that moment_, the Word of God _for you_. The next day, you could read the same passage and you'd read John 3:16 and it would be just like any other verse, with no impression being made.
> 
> It's a totally subjective approach, and a subtle way of placing man (and his subjective impressions) above, and in judgment on, the Word of God.



This is very important. 

Some years ago I was speaking with a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod president (like a bishop) regarding the inerrancy of Scripture. His comment to me - I remember it word-for-word - was: "I believe the Scriptures are inerrant *insofar as I experience the Gospel*." Since this was pure Barthian neo-orthodoxy I blurted out, "That's merely subjective postmodernism." 

Needless to say the president and I did not become close friends.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 7, 2007)

bookslover said:


> The type of theological liberalism that Machen described when he published _Christianity and Liberalism_ in 1923 was dying off at that time (murdered by the realities of World War I, among other things), to be replaced, in time, by Barth's (and Brunner's, etc.) neo-orthdoxy. While classic liberalism flat-out denied the inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture, neo-orthodoxy was more subtle, by coming at Scripture in the way I've described. The end result, in my opinion, is the same - man being placed above the Bible as judge.
> 
> By the way, a document was discovered among Machen's papers a few years ago in which he gave his opinion of Barth (written in 1929, I believe). It was published in the _Westminster Theological Journal_ sometime in the 1990s, I think.


 


Scott Shahan said:


> I'm interested in looking at that paper, I would like to read that. Do you like Arminianism? I just noticed your avatar saying......


 


Scott Shahan said:


> can find that paper that you mentioned online somewhere?


 
I think this may be what you're looking for.

WTJ 64:2 (Fall 2002) p.337
J. Gresham Machen And The Theology Of Crisis - Annette G. Aubert​Westminster Theological Seminary. (2002; 2003). _Westminster Theological Journal Volume 64_ (64:334). Westminster Theological Seminary.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 7, 2007)

The definitive unloading on Barth was Cornelius Van Til's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Barthianism-Cornelius-Van-Til/dp/0875524818/ref=sr_1_1/002-0659479-1005663?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175955720&sr=8-1"]_Christianity and Barthianism_[/ame]_. _ [ame="http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=van+til&y=0&tn=christianity+barthianism&x=0"]ABEBooks listing [/ame]Check out the TOC by clicking on the image below.




This is as good a time as any to recommend the complete works of CVT on CD-Rom for 75 bucks. It has both books on Barth as well as many articles, audio lectures, etc.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 7, 2007)

crhoades said:


> I think this may be what you're looking for.
> 
> WTJ 64:2 (Fall 2002) p.337
> J. Gresham Machen And The Theology Of Crisis - Annette G. Aubert​Westminster Theological Seminary. (2002; 2003). _Westminster Theological Journal Volume 64_ (64:334). Westminster Theological Seminary.



Thanks,
Chris


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 7, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> This is very important.
> 
> Some years ago I was speaking with a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod president (like a bishop) regarding the inerrancy of Scripture. His comment to me - I remember it word-for-word - was: "I believe the Scriptures are inerrant *insofar as I experience the Gospel*." Since this was pure Barthian neo-orthodoxy I blurted out, "That's merely subjective postmodernism."
> 
> Needless to say the president and I did not become close friends.



Wow,  I didn't expect to hear something like that from a LCMS guy, I know the ELCA definitely thinks and believes very subjective concerning scripture.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 7, 2007)

crhoades said:


> I think this may be what you're looking for.
> 
> WTJ 64:2 (Fall 2002) p.337
> J. Gresham Machen And The Theology Of Crisis - Annette G. Aubert​Westminster Theological Seminary. (2002; 2003). _Westminster Theological Journal Volume 64_ (64:334). Westminster Theological Seminary.


 
Anyone who wants said article, PM me and I'll send you a link to download it.

Chris


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 7, 2007)

crhoades said:


> Anyone who wants said article, PM me and I'll send you a link to download it.
> 
> Chris


Please!


----------



## raderag (Jul 24, 2007)

Are there any papers out there that are easily read and explain Barth's influence on modern evangelical religion?


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 24, 2007)

Ken,
I recommend Gordon Clark's book,"Karl Barth's Theological Method", available here:
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=96

Clark shows how dangerous Barth's dialectical theology was and still is.
Jim


----------



## KMK (Jul 25, 2007)

Jim Snyder said:


> Ken,
> I recommend Gordon Clark's book,"Karl Barth's Theological Method", available here:
> http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=96
> 
> ...



Thank you for the link and I love your avatar!


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks Ken!
I see you are an Office fan, too.
Jim


----------

