# Karl Barth



## Scott Shahan (Sep 12, 2007)

I have never read anything by Barth, but I was talking to a seminary student yesterday who doesn't believe in Inerrancy, and he happens to be a guy that loves Karl Barth. So I was just wondering if Barth believed in Inerrency or if he wrote anything about it.

thanks

Is there anywhere online that I can read his works??


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Sep 12, 2007)

Start by reading Barth's introduction to Romans, then 1.1. Yes, Barth loved the Bible and believed it to be the Word of God.

John


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 12, 2007)

Sydnorphyn said:


> Start by reading Barth's introduction to Romans, then 1.1. Yes, Barth loved the Bible and believed it to be the Word of God.
> 
> John




John, 

Do you know if Barth's Church Dogmatics is online somewhere?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> Sydnorphyn said:
> 
> 
> > Start by reading Barth's introduction to Romans, then 1.1. Yes, Barth loved the Bible and believed it to be the Word of God.
> ...



I doubt it. Somethng that important wouldn't be public domain just yet. 

Did Barth see himself as loving the Word of God, ? Yes.
Did Barth's formulations allow for him to adopt inerrancy? No.
Is Barth important and worth reading? Why not?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Sep 12, 2007)

I thought Barth flirted with universalism in his thinking?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 12, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> I thought Barth flirted with universalism in his thinking?



He himself did not affirm universalism in his teachings, but other theologians (rightly) saw it as a legitimate inference.


----------



## weinhold (Sep 12, 2007)

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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 12, 2007)

Barth is maddening to read. I spent a good part of last year and part of this year trying to understand him. While I find the Scriptures perspicuous, I find his theology to utterly obfuscate the plain truths. Barth mashes together Evangelical theology with Dialecticism. Perhaps if I understood Hegel more, I'd understand him more but I understand the Word enough to know that Barth and I don't speak the same language.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 12, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Barth is maddening to read. I spent a good part of last year and part of this year trying to understand him. While I find the Scriptures perspicuous, I find his theology to utterly obfuscate the plain truths. Barth mashes together Evangelical theology with Dialecticism. Perhaps if I understood Hegel more, I'd understand him more but I understand the Word enough to know that Barth and I don't speak the same language.


 
The term "neo-orthodox" has been used to characterize Barth's theology. Also Barth's view of scripture is, "The Bible *becomes* the word of God." (when it speaks to you?).

Having spent years in the mainline Presbyterian church, I remember having similar reactions to what Rich describes, as far as preaching that has been heavily influenced by Barth. As in, I've just heard a 45-minute sermon and gotten very little, if anything, out of it.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 12, 2007)

Barth needs to be understood within the context of 20th Century theology. Late 19th Century Protestantism was hopelessly liberal and subjectivistic. Barth began as a classically trained liberal (e.g., Harnack). However, in the process of dealing with Scripture he had his own Luther-like experience with Romans. His existential, neo-orthodox, rebellion against liberalism was Reformed in the broader European sense. He saw himself as a Calvinist. However, his tendency to see Jesus as THE elect man tended to produce what many of his interpreters saw as incipient universalism. 

Understanding Barth is made all of the more difficult by the dialetical way in which he thought and wrote. He gives with one hand and takes it away with the other. For Barth, truth does not inhere in propositions (contra C.F.H. Henry), but has a relational and existential dimension. So the Bible BECOMES a vehicle of revelation as we encounter God in its pages. Barth would shun any "fundamentalist" ideas of inspiration, particularly "inerrancey." During his one and only visit to America Carl Henry asked him a question, identifying himself as the editor of "Christianity Today." Barth quipped, "Oh, you mean Christainity Yesterday?"

His personal life was also complex. For much of his teaching career he had a live-in assistant, Charlotte von Kirshbaum ("Lollo"). Barth's major biographer attempts to use euphemism to slide over the fact that the "special" relationship between Karl and Lollo was a "especially painful" to Frau Barth and to the children forced to watch their father lavish all of his love and attention upon this other woman in the house. 

The greatest theologian of the 20th century? Absolutely! 
A great defender of God against rank liberalism? Certainly!
Reformed in the PCA/OPC sense of the word? No way!
Someone to emulate in terms of lifestyle? Never!

BTW, on the issue of inerrancy, you will not find too many Europeans who accept it. Even G.C. Berkouwer, under whom R.C. Sproul studied, was known for his rejection of inerrancy.


----------



## JM (Sep 12, 2007)

Barth's Church Dogmatics on CD-Rom? $299.95.
Barth's Dogmatics in print $460.00.
Having critical links to Barth's work by VanTil? Priceless!. link 2


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 12, 2007)

I have read some of his works and yes he can be very confusing. Almost as hard to read as Owens. His book on Romans put him on the map and was instrumental in debunking 19th century liberalism. He is probably one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. His existintialism influenced guys like Brunner, Bultmann and Tilich as well as many others. One things for sure, in his book on Calvin's Theology, he was no big fan of Calvin. He considered Calvin way too morose, always talking about sin and the unworthiness of man. 

He did not accept the idea of inerrancy and was certainly not Reformed.


----------



## caddy (Sep 12, 2007)

I have not read him but I have read most of Robert L Short's works ( Yep All those Snoopy Books, Gospel According to Peanuts, Parables of Peanuts, Short Meditations on the Bible and Peanuts, etc.) Short is a retired Presbyterian Minister. For the most part his books are solid. He is big on quotting Barth and Brunner. All of a sudden there are these sentences which stretch into paragraphs that states _we will all be reconcilled in Christ_. I never saw it in his 1964 Peanuts book, but yes to his other books.

From Wiki:

Karl Barth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some evangelical and fundamentalist critics have often referred to Barth as "neo-orthodox" because, while his theology retains most or all of the tenets of Christianity, he is seen as rejecting the belief which is a linchpin of their theological system: biblical inerrancy. (It was for this belief that Barth was criticized most harshly by the conservative evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer, who was a student of strident Barthian critic Cornelius Van Til.) 


Notice here: UNIVERSALISM IN PRESENT DAY THEOLOGY

Prior to 1949 the theological writings of Karl Barth indicate a universalistic trend. While Karl Barth denies that he is a universalist, the development of the triumph of grace in the apokatastasis points to a greater or lesser degree to the concept of the ultimate salvation of all. See Berkouwer, G. C., The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Note particularly: 

Notice here:

Christian Universalism: Universalist Thought Through Church History

and Here:
Berkouwer and Barth (5): A Critique of J D Bettis, â€œIs Karl Barth a Universalist?â€ « Christ in all the Scriptures / The Theology of G C Berkouwer






No Longer A Libertine said:


> I thought Barth flirted with universalism in his thinking?


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 12, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> I have never read anything by Barth, but I was talking to a seminary student yesterday who doesn't believe in Inerrancy, and he happens to be a guy that loves Karl Barth. So I was just wondering if Barth believed in Inerrency or if he wrote anything about it.
> 
> thanks
> 
> Is there anywhere online that I can read his works??



Check here and scroll down for Barth. His 'Dogmatics In Outline' is not entirely incomprehensible and is a good starting point (rather than his com. on Romans), but Barth must be read with great caution. When he is a good he is excellent. A good introduction to Karl Barth? Well, I'd recommend [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Barth-Christian-Message-Colin-Brown/dp/1579102042"]Brown[/ame] and G W Bromiley - Historical Theology - An Introduction (every PB member ought to have a copy!!!). Click [ame="http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/inspiration_bromiley.pdf"]here[/ame] to get an idea.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Sep 12, 2007)

Scott Shahan said:


> Sydnorphyn said:
> 
> 
> > Start by reading Barth's introduction to Romans, then 1.1. Yes, Barth loved the Bible and believed it to be the Word of God.
> ...



Not that I am aware of, most theological seminaries have it.

John


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Sep 12, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Scott Shahan said:
> 
> 
> > Sydnorphyn said:
> ...



It really depends on what part of Barth you are reading...when it was written; I think he morphs as you span his literature.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 12, 2007)

Logos is in the process of releasing the Church Dogmatics in the Logos Libronix format for a pre-pub price of $299. However, beware! I pre-ordered this on 3/15/06 and they still list it as "gathering interest." T. & T. Clark has also been promising to release it on CD-ROM for years as well. 

There is a free e-Sword module (topic note) on "prayer and preaching" by Barth floating around the Net.

I agree with Dieter Schneider that Bromiley's book would be a good start. Bromiley (a former prof of mine) was one of the major translators of Barth's _Die Kirchliche Domatik_. The way another former prof of mine put it: "KB (Karl Barth) will be in heaven, but not KD (his Church Dogmatics)." If you want the biographical side as well (including the euphemistic glossing over the relationship with Lollo), the best books remain the ones written by Eberhard Busch ("The Great Passion" and "Karl Barth").

A good friend of mine studied under Culmann in Basel and took advantage of some of Barth's seminars near the end of his teaching career. Barth was a titanic enough figure that I not only had my picture taken in Calvin's pulpit in Geneva but in front of Barth's house in Basel. In my humble opinion, Barth should be read; Calvin should be studied.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 12, 2007)

caddy said:


> I have not read him but I have read most of Robert L Short's works ( Yep All those Snoopy Books, Gospel According to Peanuts, Parables of Peanuts, Short Meditations on the Bible and Peanuts, etc.) Short is a retired Presbyterian Minister. For the most part his books are solid. He is big on quotting Barth and Brunner. All of a sudden there are these sentences which stretch into paragraphs that states _we will all be reconcilled in Christ_. I never saw it in his 1964 Peanuts book, but yes to his other books.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> ...





Steven,

Thanks for posting those links, that is some good reading


----------



## bookslover (Sep 12, 2007)

Read Barth? Life is too short...

Better to read someone who had respect for the Bible as the infallible, inerrant Word of God.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 12, 2007)

caddy said:


> I have not read him but I have read most of Robert L Short's works ( Yep All those Snoopy Books, Gospel According to Peanuts, Parables of Peanuts, Short Meditations on the Bible and Peanuts, etc.) Short is a retired Presbyterian Minister. For the most part his books are solid. He is big on quotting Barth and Brunner. All of a sudden there are these sentences which stretch into paragraphs that states _we will all be reconcilled in Christ_. I never saw it in his 1964 Peanuts book, but yes to his other books.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> ...





This came up in some of the reading that I am doing and thought I would ask what you all thought of it;


"Barthians respond by saying that the claim that the foundation of theology is biblical inerrancy is to use a foundation other than Jesus Christ, and that our understanding of Scripture's accuracy and worth can only properly emerge from consideration of what it means for it to be a true witness to the incarnate Word, Jesus"


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 12, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Read Barth? Life is too short...
> 
> Better to read someone who had respect for the Bible as the infallible, inerrant Word of God.




Richard,

I am just asking about his logic, when it is mentioned that all theology's foundation should be Jesus and not the bible. Is it possible to seperate Jesus from His Word????


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 12, 2007)

how is it that you guys think highly of Karl Barth, whereas Henry Van Til rips into him in his work, "The Calvinistic Concept of Culture". Am I missing something here?


----------



## Scott Shahan (Sep 12, 2007)

Slippery said:


> how is it that you guys think highly of Karl Barth, whereas Henry Van Til rips into him in his work, "The Calvinistic Concept of Culture". Am I missing something here?



Keon,

I haven't ever read him before I am just wondering about his theology and where he is coming from. I understand what universal salvation "means", I just don't understand "how" they get there?? How do they read the bible and have it teach a universal salvation?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 12, 2007)

at least you are curious. With me, once Van Til rejects a theologian as heretical, I don't even want to dabble with them. 

Inerrancy is one of the biggest things for me. My faith is not that great, therefore my deductions are simple.

1. God is Sovereign and Perfect.
2. The revealed word of God shows God's nature and holiness.
3. It follows that God's word must be perfect and holy as He is.
4. Jesus ratified the above by saying, "Heaven and earth is more likely to pass away than one dot or tittle"

Good luck with Barth. If the word of God errs, my flesh is just waiting to indulge itself in justly in excesses of this culture. The promiscuous single woman with a big bank account, the guy that sells good weed in east new york, the brazilian restaurant that serves huge chunks of pork, beef, and lamb, the dance club roxy on friday night where you can party until the morning. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. I would be a fool and an idiot to crucify my flesh and my indulgences for a God whose word errs. Life is too short for nonsensical philosophies. Either be of the truth or indulge yourself in excesses. Lukewarmness is for whimps and wannabes. I don't go to a burger joint to ask for a low fat sandwich


----------



## caddy (Sep 12, 2007)

Wise man....



Slippery said:


> at least you are curious. With me, once Van Til rejects a theologian as heretical, I don't even want to dabble with them.
> 
> Inerrancy is one of the biggest things for me. My faith is not that great, therefore my deductions are simple.
> 
> ...


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 12, 2007)

_how is it that you guys think highly of Karl Barth, whereas Henry Van Til rips into him in his work, "The Calvinistic Concept of Culture". Am I missing something here?
__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY_

Sorry to have miscommunciated. I view him as an heterodox adulterer (as was Tillich). Inerrancy has become ever more important to me over more than three decades of ministry. His refusal to accept that is a fatal flaw (but not the only one) in his theology.


----------

