# Karl Barth?



## The Author of my Faith

Can anyone tell me what the deal is with Karl Barth?

Was he Reformed? 

Is his work worth reading?

I think he had an issue with the inerrancy of scripture?

Is his view on Election correct?

Thanks

Steve


----------



## Contra_Mundum

KB was one of the fathers, perhaps the most generally influential, of the "neo-orthodox."

That movement was a reaction against liberalism, however, while it crossed the stream of old orthodoxy (picking up language, ideas), it showed its modernism by rejecting the idea of "walking the old paths". As a movement, it insisted on carving out a new direction.

KB is immensely influential, often sounds orthodox, quotes a lot of Scripture, believes absolutely contradictory things about revelation may still be true, flirted with universalism, was Christo-monistic, to name a few things.

Not a safe guide. But you still might want to know about him. Besides reading the man himself (if you cared), you can read a few of the critiques of him by more orthodox writers.


----------



## Knoxienne

Contra_Mundum said:


> KB was one of the fathers, perhaps the most generally influential, of the "neo-orthodox."
> 
> That movement was a reaction against liberalism, however, while it crossed the stream of old orthodoxy (picking up language, ideas), it showed its modernism by rejecting the idea of "walking the old paths". As a movement, it insisted on carving out a new direction.
> 
> KB is immensely influential, often sounds orthodox, quotes a lot of Scripture, believes absolutely contradictory things about revelation may still be true, flirted with universalism, was Christo-monistic, to name a few things.
> 
> Not a safe guide. But you still might want to know about him. Besides reading the man himself (if you cared), you can read a few of the critiques of him by more orthodox writers.



Reverend Buchanan (or anyone else) would you explain what Christo-monistic means? Is that the same as Sabellianism which the Jesus Only Movement teaches? 

Thanks


----------



## Craig

I haven't read any Barth in about 10 years...so I don't trust my recollection much. If I remember correctly, he was in love with an incarnational God...not because the Eternal is united to a human nature, rather, the Eternal *became* finite.

Also, he had a different view of inspiration than an orthodox believer would hold...the word "becomes" revelation to us as we read the word...which is not revelation in itself.

I've read that Cornelius Van Til was the first theologian to sound the alarm on Barth, and I came across this audio link (I don't know if it's good, nor if it's still up...I'm at work with no sound).

This pdf looks really interesting...it was delivered by Mark DeVine, of Southern Baptist Seminary, at the annual Evangelical Theological Society in 2001.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Barth is the big dog for mainline evangelicals. Take that for what it means.

He has some good things to say: he stood up to the Nazis and radical Liberals and he stood for the basics of our faith. He compromises/muddies the doctrines of Scripture and election. He taught that the Bible is not God's Word, as Jesus was. He also taught that inerrancy was for fools and that historical criticism is valid. He also was fond of overly long-winded sentences that are almost unreadable.

Just get a guide to his thought if you're interested. There are several smaller works available.

Now, paging Grymir.....


----------



## The Author of my Faith

Thank you all for your comments. I have a freind who swears by him and my friend has some views that I do not adhere to. So it is good to get some solid info.

Thanks

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 10:32:44 EST-----



Craig said:


> I haven't read any Barth in about 10 years...so I don't trust my recollection much. If I remember correctly, he was in love with an incarnational God...not because the Eternal is united to a human nature, rather, the Eternal *became* finite.
> 
> Also, he had a different view of inspiration than an orthodox believer would hold...the word "becomes" revelation to us as we read the word...which is not revelation in itself.
> 
> I've read that Cornelius Van Til was the first theologian to sound the alarm on Barth, and I came across this audio link (I don't know if it's good, nor if it's still up...I'm at work with no sound).
> 
> This pdf looks really interesting...it was delivered by Mark DeVine, of Southern Baptist Seminary, at the annual Evangelical Theological Society in 2001.



Craig,
Thanks for the links. I am going to read and listen.

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 10:33:40 EST-----



Contra_Mundum said:


> KB was one of the fathers, perhaps the most generally influential, of the "neo-orthodox."
> 
> That movement was a reaction against liberalism, however, while it crossed the stream of old orthodoxy (picking up language, ideas), it showed its modernism by rejecting the idea of "walking the old paths". As a movement, it insisted on carving out a new direction.
> 
> KB is immensely influential, often sounds orthodox, quotes a lot of Scripture, believes absolutely contradictory things about revelation may still be true, flirted with universalism, was Christo-monistic, to name a few things.
> 
> Not a safe guide. But you still might want to know about him. Besides reading the man himself (if you cared), you can read a few of the critiques of him by more orthodox writers.



Bruce, can you elaborate on Christo-monistic?

Thanks


----------



## kvanlaan

Wow, this thread would make Tim Johnson's (Grymir) head explode. I can't believe he hasn't posted yet...

Get ready for both barrels, loaded to the muzzle.


----------



## Quickened

kvanlaan said:


> Wow, this thread would make Tim Johnson's (Grymir) head explode. I can't believe he hasn't posted yet...
> 
> Get ready for both barrels, loaded to the muzzle.



Ha! I would have thought he would have already posted in here!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Christo-centric: The message of the Bible is centered on Christ

Christo-telic: The purpose of revelation is to point us to Christ

*Christo-monistic*: God is only interested in Christ.

To the degree that God is interested in an "ordinary" person, it is only tertiary. Christ is Elect, and he alone. Subsidiarity to him the church ideal is elect. Only after that may one speak of individuals as being in some sense elect. And it could be that there are no "non-elect", which would mean that personal "election" is really wiped out entirely making it a meaningless category. God inhabits Christ, and doubly predestines him--electing himself for judgment, electing man for salvation.

All very esoteric, but that is where "actuality" and "possibility" are both to be found. Our personal concerns about our relation to God, our sinfulness, etc.--all this is a mistake, as far as KB is concerned. Salvation is about discovering how you are already IN Christ, not about being awakened to your need to be found in Him.


----------



## ExGentibus

Contra_Mundum said:


> *Christo-monistic*: God is only interested in Christ.
> 
> To the degree that God is interested in an "ordinary" person, it is only tertiary. Christ is Elect, and he alone. Subsidiarity to him the church ideal is elect. Only after that may one speak of individuals as being in some sense elect. And it could be that there are no "non-elect", which would mean that personal "election" is really wiped out entirely making it a meaningless category. God inhabits Christ, and doubly predestines him--electing himself for judgment, electing man for salvation.


I remember reading Barth on election a few years ago and could not believe he was listed among the reformed theologians. His view of predestination is no predestination at all except for Christ. When I finally understood what he (might have) meant, I gave up and decided my time would be better invested in Turretini and Owen.


----------



## DMcFadden

Sorry to be coming to this thread so late. My major theology prof in college was a strong Barthian and my historical theology prof in seminary was one of the translators of the 14 volume _Church Dogmatics_, his 9,000+ pages _magnum opus_.

I agree with everything Bruce offered already. Here are some extra colors for the basic picture.

* Barth cut his teeth on theological liberalism (total emphasis upon the imminence of God and the horizontal dimensions of "religion").
* Barth rebelled against liberalism and tried to pioneer a "return to the Bible" without fundamentalism and without ignoring the "insights" of the Enlightenment. He emphasized the transcendent God who acted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
* Barth was afflicted with the philosophical implications of an existentializing of everything in the 20th century. His affinities with that failed philosophy can also be seen in Brunner and Bultmann.
* Barth was a "dialectical" thinker. A and its opposite B resolve themselves in C. Much of what he seems to affirm is put in stark opposition to its polar opposite. That is why it is so infuriating to ask him what he thinks of the Bible, universal salvation, etc. No sooner does he make a statement that seems orthodox when he denies it in the next paragraph. You can hardly read his voluminous writings without finding contradictory things said on the same subject. Reading Barth in context is essential, and essentially frustrating.
* During his famous visit to America in 1960 he was asked a question by Carl F.H. Henry, who identified himself as the editor of _Christianity Today_. Barth responded by joking, "Oh, you mean Christianity Yesterday?" Kindof cold, don't you think? Then, on that same visit, he was asked to summarize his years of theological ruminations and he did so by saying: "Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so."
* _ Time _magazine put him on its cover in April of 1962 (pretty impressive placement for a secular mag).
* During the 1950s and 1960s he was the doyen of mainline/liberal Protestantism in America.
* Several of my seminary profs and good friends studied (at least partly) under Barth in Basel, including Robert P. Meye and Daniel P. Fuller.
* Barth's personal life was very . . . er . . . hmmmm . . . "European." He had an assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, who lived with his family for decades. He and she would go off summers to the mountains (without his family) to think theologically and "work." She acted as the hostess when Barth received important guests at his summer get-away.
* Barth began each day with a selection of Motzart, his favorite composer.
* Barth came from the Reformed tradition (in the same sense that the PCUSA and the CRC does). I mean, he wasn't a Baptist or a Lutheran, or a Roman Catholic. However, he took GREAT offense at Calvin and corrected him often.
* Barth understood that if election is understood in the Reformed sense, it would lead to heaven or hell. Only by redefining election as applying only to Christ (e.g., christomonism) does he solve the problem. Christ was the prodigal son, the judge who came to be judged in our place, the one on whom the judgment for sin fell AND the elect predestined one. Since humanity is IN Christ, he could offer no compelling argument against those who accused him of universalism. Because of the way in which he reconciled the two sides of God's electing grace in Christ, there was really no logical room left for hell.
* Barth is fairly popular today with emergents who like his ability to say "yes" and "no" at the same time in a cool and confusing way. They also like his unwillingness to posit anything other than a glorious future for humanity in Christ.
* G.C. Berkouwer (mentor to both Jack Rogers AND R.C. Sproul Sr) wrote a book, the _Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth_. Barth liked it and said that Berkouwer understood him. Conservatives at places such as Westminster called it the "Triumph of Karl Barth in the Theology of G.C. Berkouwer."


----------



## Oecolampadius

I have this book by Van Til but I have yet to read it,

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Barthianism-Cornelius-Van-Til/dp/0875524818/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242929077&sr=8-8]Amazon.com: Christianity and Barthianism: Cornelius Van Til: Books[/ame]


----------



## The Author of my Faith

OK AND WHO IS Grymir?

I guess I will find out soon enough


----------



## DMcFadden

Grymir is the PB name of a man who is a member of a PCUSA church and absolutely HATES Barth and Barthianism for the corrosive effect on spirituality and doctrine in his denomination.


----------



## kvanlaan

I've already PM'ed him a few hours ago - he was on the bacon grease thread yesterday, so I know he's active now, and to be perfectly honest, I thought he could have smelled this thread from Iowa.

It may be that he started reading here and had a massive aneurysm a few posts into it. That's my guess.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

Oh I thought that he might have been a huge Barth Fan and was going to refute all the bad press. 

And forgive me I know I have looked into this before but as to the Presbyterian Church which one is liberal and which one is solid in it's theology again?

Thanks


----------



## Prufrock

> Originally Posted by *The Author of my Faith*
> _And forgive me I know I have looked into this before but as to the Presbyterian Church which one is liberal and which one is solid in it's theology again?_



The PC(USA) is the standard "liberal" presbyterian church; the EPC is pretty mainline-to-(potentially) liberal; the PCA, OPC, RPCNA, PRC, ARP, etc., are all confessional Presbyterian churches.


----------



## Ivan

The Author of my Faith said:


> Oh I thought that he might have been *a huge Barth Fan* and was going to refute all the bad press.



You'll find none here.

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 03:44:42 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> * Barth began each day with a selection of Mozart, his favorite composer.



So I have something in common with Barth! Not that I begin each day with Mozart, not a bad idea, but that he is my favorite composer.

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 03:45:41 EST-----



Classical Presbyterian said:


> Barth is the big dog for mainline evangelicals. Take that for what it means.



Define mainline evangelicals, please.


----------



## CharlieJ

I find it hilarious that the Forum view of this thread looks like this:

Karl Barth
The Author of My Faith


----------



## The Author of my Faith

*Doctrine*

I did not realize there were so many branches of the Presbyterian church.

I guess Doctrine truly does divide and rightly so. I guess some of these denominations need to split especially when they decide to stray from the narrow way and embrace every kind of false teaching and liberal mindset out there.

I came from a church called the Brooklyn Tabernacle. My ex-pastor Jim Cymbala preaches a very stong Doctrinal Position. That position is: "You Do Not Need Doctrine, You Just Need The Holy Spirit". He preaches on the Authority of Story and not on the Authority of Scripture. To the unlearned he sounds great but once you begin to really study the Bible and see the truth in light of Reformed Thought you see that he is preaching an expereinced based faith and not a biblically based faith. Typical in Arminian circles.

Becase he boasts that he had not seminary training he constantly tells the congregation from the pulpit. "You do not need Doctrine, You do not need seminary, Just say yes to God, the Holy Spirit is all you need". 
His whole ministry is based on an event when he was on a fishing boat in Florida and the Holy Spirit spoke to him and said "If you would just teach the people to call upon my name you will never have a building big enough to fit all the people I will send and you will never be in want for a sermon again.
(paraphrased but something of that sort.)

How Dangerous is that!

I know I was under it for 20 years. I was hoodwinked into believing that my position was true Christianity and that Reformed Calvinistic Tehology was basically evil and mean spirited. The only book that he ever gave me was "What Love is This" by Dave Hunt. It was because of that Book and my desire to know truth that I came to embrace Reformed Theology.

It is kind of funny but Cymbala loves to tell stories of Historical Revivals and he constantly tells of Whitefield and the First Great Awakening, Evan Roberts and the Welsh Revival, Jeremiah Lamphier and the New York City Prayer Revival and loves to quote from Andrew Bonar. And from what I understand they are were all Reformed in their Doctrine. Yet he condemns Reformed Doctrine. 

In those circles they seem to ordain peolpe as pastors who have no seminary training. As long as they are a dynamic speaker and can draw a huge altar call that is the litmus test for the ministry. As long as your doctrine is "I love Jesus" that is pretty much all you need.

DANGEROUS!!! 

I cannot believe I was under that for 20 years. God have mercy!!

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 04:14:44 EST-----



CharlieJ said:


> I find it hilarious that the Forum view of this thread looks like this:
> 
> Karl Barth
> The Author of My Faith



That is my Screen Name... Don't be a wise Guy!!!


----------



## Ivan

The Author of my Faith said:


> I came from a church called the Brooklyn Tabernacle.....Becase he boasts that he had not seminary training he constantly tells the congregation from the pulpit. "You do not need Doctrine, You do not need seminary, *Just say yes to God, the Holy Spirit is all you need".*



So what about Jesus Christ?


----------



## Oecolampadius

The Author of my Faith said:


> I did not realize there were so many branches of the Presbyterian church.
> 
> I guess Doctrine truly does divide and rightly so. I guess some of these denominations need to split especially when they decide to stray from the narrow way and embrace every kind of false teaching and liberal mindset out there.



I hope you don't see the confessional & reformed denominations as essentially divided though. Although there might be some disagreements amongst some of the Presbyterian Reformed denoms on certain issues, they do have an established formal relationship with one another.

Take NAPARC for example. The denomination that I belong to, OPC, is a member of NAPARC and I noticed that the fraternal relations it has with the other NAPARC denoms is honored whenever it welcomes fraternal delegates from these other denoms.

You can click on the link below if you want to check this out further:
NAPARC's website.


----------



## Hippo

The Author of my Faith said:


> The only book that he ever gave me was "What Love is This" by Dave Hunt. It was because of that Book and my desire to know truth that I came to embrace Reformed Theology.



How funny is that !


----------



## The Author of my Faith

WHERE IS Grymir? The Anticipation is KILLING ME!!! 

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 05:25:24 EST-----

Maybe if I wore an "I love Karl Barth" tee shirt he would hasten to the call?


----------



## DMcFadden

Grymir! Hey Tim! Where are you? I've been telling everybody what a fan of Barth you are. How you have every book he ever wrote underlined. How you defend his relationship with his assistant, Lollo (aka Ms. Charlotte). How you read him and then study your NIV in the paperback version. How you celebrate the great impact that he has had upon your denomination.

Tim . . . Tim . . . are you there???


----------



## DMcFadden

> *So I have something in common with Barth!*



Ivan, you vacation with your assistant too! 



> Barth is the big dog for mainline evangelicals. Take that for what it means.



Most of the PhD theology types in the major evangelical seminaries slobber all over themselves when Barth's name is mentioned. With the massive corpus of his works, nobody really reads it all. But, what an ego trip to throw his name around as if you are so erudite and so cool too. The irony is that the evangelicals discovered Barth just as the mainliners were moving on to more contemporary ideologies.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Ivan said:


> The Author of my Faith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I came from a church called the Brooklyn Tabernacle.....Becase he boasts that he had not seminary training he constantly tells the congregation from the pulpit. "You do not need Doctrine, You do not need seminary, *Just say yes to God, the Holy Spirit is all you need".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about Jesus Christ?
Click to expand...


There is such an infactuation with the "gifts" the "Holy Spirit" gives in these churches. At the end of it, and I can speak from experience being in a charasmatic church for four years, its not about how precious Jesus is, but how much gifts or authority I have been given by the Holy Ghost. Its about numbers, and stradegies. We NEED DOCTRINE. For it is in our doctrine, where we KNOW THE TRUE Jesus.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I recommend you find Webster's Barth (see [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Barth-Outstanding-Christian-Thinkers-Webster/dp/0826474632/ref=sr_1_3/105-5316782-5994063?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181264078&sr=1-3"]here[/ame]) for a starter read to get the lay of the land.

AMR


----------



## Theognome

Barth... Isn't he the bratty kid on The Simpsons?

Theognome


----------



## glorifyinggodinwv

I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

XBlackWaterX said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Author of my Faith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I came from a church called the Brooklyn Tabernacle.....Becase he boasts that he had not seminary training he constantly tells the congregation from the pulpit. "You do not need Doctrine, You do not need seminary, *Just say yes to God, the Holy Spirit is all you need".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about Jesus Christ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is such an infactuation with the "gifts" the "Holy Spirit" gives in these churches. At the end of it, and I can speak from experience being in a charasmatic church for four years, its not about how precious Jesus is, but how much gifts or authority I have been given by the Holy Ghost. Its about numbers, and stradegies. We NEED DOCTRINE. For it is in our doctrine, where we KNOW THE TRUE Jesus.
Click to expand...


But doctrine is Dead. Just say yes to God. Just trust Jesus. Just be led by the Spirit. Doctrine is dry and those who adhere to it are orthodoxy dead heads with no Holy Spirit. Speak in tongues, pray, no SCREAM at God and DECREE that he heals and saves and provides finances. DECREE IT and do not doubt. After all THE MOST IMPORTANT MEETING of the Week is the Prayer Meeting. In order to have an effective service you MUST have an altar call for believers to respond to the word preached. At the end of your sermon just dim the lights, play a beautiful song and beg the people to come forward and say yes to God. BUT whatever you do please DO NOT TEACH THEM DOCTRINE because if you keep them stupid enough and simply preach personal stories about how God spoke to you and how God answered your prayers by sending you 1 Million Dollars you will keep the people coming because after all it is all about NUMBERS. And we all know that Numbers = Money.

This is the Theology of most Charismatic Churches.

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 08:31:55 EST-----



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I recommend you find Webster's Barth (see here) for a starter read to get the lay of the land.
> 
> AMR



Thanks I want to read him because i want to know how to respond in a sound biblical way. I will check it out.

Thanks


----------



## DMcFadden

glorifyinggodinwv said:


> I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.



Chris, your experience is what I was speaking of when noting that evangelicals discovered Barth just about when he was all but buried in the mainline sems. They had discovered the delights of gay theology, feminist theology, ecological theology, et. al.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

glorifyinggodinwv said:


> I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.




Chris no disrespect meant to you but tell me. Did you adhere to the doctrines of Grace before you enrolled in that school? If so WHY IN THE WORLD would you enroll? I was attending Alliance Theological Seminary in NYC and it was there through a professor who graduated from Westminster in Philly and was a Reformed Pastor that I came to embrace Calvinism. Between his teaching and a book that I was given by my pastor "What Love is This" I came to embrace Reformed Theology. This professor was probably the ONLY Reformed guy there. My next class I received 2 books that were basically Black Liberation Theology and Another that seemed to be only endorsed by the most liberal seminaries. I drop out of that school.

I have a problem, maybe this should be a whole separate post. I might even do that. But how can someone who is Reformed attend a school like Princeton, Union Theological Seminary or Crozer Rochester Divinity School or any other Liberal Seminary where ordaining homosexuals and liberation theology are the norm? 

I had an argument with a friend who is Arminian who's Pastor attended Union in NYC. He told me that Seminary is not the church and therefore He had no problem studying to get a Doctrate in Theology in one of those institutions. I personally think that is hogwash. To say seminary is not the church is like saying Medical School is not the hospital. But if the school is producing quacks what is the hospital going to be filled with?

Sorry I just do not get that line of thinking. No offense just puzzles me.


----------



## glorifyinggodinwv

DMcFadden said:


> glorifyinggodinwv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, your experience is what I was speaking of when noting that evangelicals discovered Barth just about when he was all but buried in the mainline sems. They had discovered the delights of gay theology, feminist theology, ecological theology, et. al.
Click to expand...


Dennis,
Sorry about that. I had missed the last line in one of your posts where you said exactly that.
Blessings,

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 08:45:36 EST-----



The Author of my Faith said:


> glorifyinggodinwv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris no disrespect meant to you but tell me. Did you adhere to the doctrines of Grace before you enrolled in that school? If so WHY IN THE WORLD would you enroll? I was attending Alliance Theological Seminary in NYC and it was there through a professor who graduated from Westminster in Philly and was a Reformed Pastor that I came to embrace Calvinism. Between his teaching and a book that I was given by my pastor "What Love is This" I came to embrace Reformed Theology. This professor was probably the ONLY Reformed guy there. My next class I received 2 books that were basically Black Liberation Theology and Another that seemed to be only endorsed by the most liberal seminaries. I drop out of that school.
> 
> I have a problem, maybe this should be a whole separate post. I might even do that. But how can someone who is Reformed attend a school like Princeton, Union Theological Seminary or Crozer Rochester Divinity School or any other Liberal Seminary where ordaining homosexuals and liberation theology are the norm?
> 
> I had an argument with a friend who is Arminian who's Pastor attended Union in NYC. He told me that Seminary is not the church and therefore He had no problem studying to get a Doctrate in Theology in one of those institutions. I personally think that is hogwash. To say seminary is not the church is like saying Medical School is not the hospital. But if the school is producing quacks what is the hospital going to be filled with?
> 
> Sorry I just do not get that line of thinking. No offense just puzzles me.
Click to expand...


Steven,

I had a vague notion of the DofG when I enrolled. It was certainly not expected that incoming students adhered to any such system. I was converted to the DofG "during" seminary while preaching weekly, studying Calvin, R.C. Sproul, and reading the PB when I had time.

Blessings,


----------



## The Author of my Faith

glorifyinggodinwv said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> glorifyinggodinwv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris, your experience is what I was speaking of when noting that evangelicals discovered Barth just about when he was all but buried in the mainline sems. They had discovered the delights of gay theology, feminist theology, ecological theology, et. al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> Sorry about that. I had missed the last line in one of your posts where you said exactly that.
> Blessings,
> 
> -----Added 5/21/2009 at 08:45:36 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> The Author of my Faith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> glorifyinggodinwv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Chris no disrespect meant to you but tell me. Did you adhere to the doctrines of Grace before you enrolled in that school? If so WHY IN THE WORLD would you enroll? I was attending Alliance Theological Seminary in NYC and it was there through a professor who graduated from Westminster in Philly and was a Reformed Pastor that I came to embrace Calvinism. Between his teaching and a book that I was given by my pastor "What Love is This" I came to embrace Reformed Theology. This professor was probably the ONLY Reformed guy there. My next class I received 2 books that were basically Black Liberation Theology and Another that seemed to be only endorsed by the most liberal seminaries. I drop out of that school.
> 
> I have a problem, maybe this should be a whole separate post. I might even do that. But how can someone who is Reformed attend a school like Princeton, Union Theological Seminary or Crozer Rochester Divinity School or any other Liberal Seminary where ordaining homosexuals and liberation theology are the norm?
> 
> I had an argument with a friend who is Arminian who's Pastor attended Union in NYC. He told me that Seminary is not the church and therefore He had no problem studying to get a Doctrate in Theology in one of those institutions. I personally think that is hogwash. To say seminary is not the church is like saying Medical School is not the hospital. But if the school is producing quacks what is the hospital going to be filled with?
> 
> Sorry I just do not get that line of thinking. No offense just puzzles me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steven,
> 
> I had a vague notion of the DofG when I enrolled. It was certainly not expected that incoming students adhered to any such system. I was converted to the DofG "during" seminary while preaching weekly, studying Calvin, R.C. Sproul, and reading the PB when I had time.
> 
> Blessings,
Click to expand...



Good!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

> glorifyinggodinwv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I graduated from a mainline seminary in 2005. Barth, even though his influence was evident in some of the professors, most did not hold him in high regard. My observation was that any systematic theology, except for those which espoused process theology, feministic theology, Womanist, liberation theology, etc. were viewed with extreme caution, even Barth. Those theologies written by "old white men" were especially not in favor. In the theology courses, I cannot remember spending more than a day or two discussing Barth. My comprehensive statement of faith during my senior year was nearly rejected because I quoted Calvin more than any other theologian. I had a "few" Barth quotes and these were even viewed with derision. The advisors wondered aloud if I had grown at all in my theology during my seminary experience. Off topic, but I started seminary with a vague theology, but the more I was exposed to these other theologies (liberation, process, feminist, etc), the more I began to realize in my own study that Calvin was the best systematizer of what the Bible thought. Ironies of ironies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven,
> 
> I had a vague notion of the DofG when I enrolled. It was certainly not expected that incoming students adhered to any such system. I was converted to the DofG "during" seminary while preaching weekly, studying Calvin, R.C. Sproul, and reading the PB when I had time.
> 
> Blessings,
Click to expand...




This describes my seminary experience to a T. 

Union, Columbia, or Louisville?


----------



## Marrow Man

Theognome said:


> Barth... Isn't he the bratty kid on The Simpsons?
> 
> Theognome



Don't have an existential cow, man.


----------



## Grymir

O.K. Y'all. Here I come to save the day!! <insert mighty mouse emoticon here.>

I just got off of work. I could smell the evil stench when I walked in the door. 

To sum it up, Barth is a hack that doesn't deserve the paper he's printed on. My wife is brewing me some coffee, and I'll post specifics in a while. 

To wit, if my Bible is sitting in the woods and nobody is around to read it; is it still the word of God??? Barth says no.

By the way. I did get a job. I'll line cooking now instead of being the General manager/Chef, so my time is more limited. I'm not ignorin y'all.

I have to get out of these greasy clothes to deal with this dirty subject. 

Where my theological Sham Wow?

-----Added 5/21/2009 at 11:33:07 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> Grymir! Hey Tim! Where are you? I've been telling everybody what a fan of Barth you are. How you have every book he ever wrote underlined. How you defend his relationship with his assistant, Lollo (aka Ms. Charlotte). How you read him and then study your NIV in the paperback version. How you celebrate the great impact that he has had upon your denomination.
> 
> Tim . . . Tim . . . are you there???



Paperback?? Paperback?? You can't even buy Barth in paperback! Don't make make me break out my John Hagee autographed Scofield KJV!! My dog won't even eat it. (hint, hint).

And way too much influence on my denomination. They talk about love. Love, love, love. My pastor is a grad of Princeton. He is a Barth fan. That's what they taught when he was there. Neo-orthodoxy is a plague on the church. Love, Love, Love. Happy Happy Joy Joy. 

Which brings me to Barth's legacy. Sermon after sermon about how your life will be better if you have alot of Jesus (we can't have a little Jesus, we have to have a big Jesus). The Bible mined for it's great psychological gems, Jesus will be your therapist. Jesus is the great example of what we should act like. No sin, no death. The cross is a shining example of God's love for us...only. No atonement. No mention of hell. Nada. Zip. Zero. Ziltch. PPPPllleeeaaasssee. Just one mention of hell would be nice.

Like I READ in Barth. You only mention sin in relation to the cross. Never mention it in relation to the people (that's in his book on preaching). 

We almost sound like a Jesus only church. God the father? God the Holy Ghost? Who are they?? 

More to come. I'm on my second cup of coffee and just getting warmed up!


----------



## DMcFadden

Grymir said:


> Paperback?? Paperback?? You can't even buy Barth in paperback! Don't make make me break out my John Hagee autographed Scofield KJV!! My dog won't even eat it. (hint, hint).



Tim,

First, congrats on getting the job. We have missed you, however. It is good to have you back, brother.

Second, my sentence was about studying your "NIV in paperback" (= a double slam on a KJV leather man).

Third, yes there is a printing of Barth in paperback out now. The _Church Dogmatics_ in paper is available for $399 from CBD (Vendor: Continuum International/ Publication Date: 2009/ ISBN: 056702279X ISBN-13: 9780567022790).


----------



## Ivan

DMcFadden said:


> Third, yes there is a printing of Barth in paperback out now. The _Church Dogmatics_ in paper is available for $399 from CBD (Vendor: Continuum International/ Publication Date: 2009/ ISBN: 056702279X ISBN-13: 9780567022790).



Timothy, this is great! Want to go in on it with me?


----------



## Grymir

Barth in paperback? Sigh. Thats all I need is for him to be more accessable to the people in my church. And still $399? Maybe DMcFadden meant $3.99? That's more appropriate. And although I thank you Ivan for the offer, I have to decline.

As to the OP, I just don't understand how he got so popular. He's a big deal to those who are middle-of-the-roader's. As to his worth reading? "Nein!" I had to read him because he's so prevelant in my church. People said "How can you say that stuff about him if you haven't read him." Sigh. So I read him and then gave quotes to show what I was saying. I found his letters to be the most enjoyable. It shows the practical side of him and his struggles. Which he wouldn't of had to go through if he would of taken a stand on the bible as the Word of God instead of Containing the Word of God.

For a good example, compare the Barmen Declaration to the Westminister Confession of Faith. The difference between them like night and day. A confession 'light' and a real confession. 

I think he reads like a devotional at best...to put him in the best terms.


----------



## Ivan

Grymir said:


> And although I thank you Ivan for the offer, I have to decline.





-----Added 5/22/2009 at 01:08:47 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> *So I have something in common with Barth!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan, you vacation with your assistant too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! He stays home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barth is the big dog for mainline evangelicals. Take that for what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the PhD theology types in the major evangelical seminaries slobber all over themselves when Barth's name is mentioned. With the massive corpus of his works, nobody really reads it all. But, what an ego trip to throw his name around as if you are so erudite and so cool too. The irony is that the evangelicals discovered Barth just as the mainliners were moving on to more contemporary ideologies.[/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that's the case in SBC seminaries. I certainly haven't heard that to be the case. I'm sure they know about him and have read him but I doubt that they are slobbering over him!
> 
> But I might be wrong.
Click to expand...


----------



## DMcFadden

Ivan,

Remember that in some ways the SBC is a VERY insular body. Sometimes I think they make the Presbyterian micro-denominations look broad minded! 

There are a few bodies out there (e.g., Restorationist Cambellites, certain sects of the Reformed, and the SBC) that are soooo insular that they tend to read their own publications, use their own S.S. materials, and talk their own language. I'm not surprised that Barth would not be all that popular in the SBC. He would have been popular in some of the OLD SBC seminaries before the Resurgence. But, many of the broad evangelical schools tipped their hats to him often. Frankly, however, today the libs are addicted to GLBTQ, feminist, and green "theologies." The evangelicals are dabbling with the emergent crowd more than any of the old timer theologians. 

But, to the extent that Grymir is concerned about the negative effects of the Baron of Basel, his influence has waned in the mainline academy and is pretty much limited to academic broad evangelicalism. Again, I am under no misapprehensions of his popularity. McLaren or Padgett would be read a lot more than Barth these days.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

GRYMIR, SO YOU ARE NOT A MYTH AFER ALL!!  LOL.

So Barth was really that bad. Can you give me 3 SHORT examples of what he teaches that is not inline with the Historic Christian faith. Not 3 BOOKS  

Steve

-----Added 5/22/2009 at 07:10:48 EST-----



Grymir said:


> Barth in paperback? Sigh. Thats all I need is for him to be more accessable to the people in my church. And still $399? Maybe DMcFadden meant $3.99? That's more appropriate. And although I thank you Ivan for the offer, I have to decline.
> 
> As to the OP, I just don't understand how he got so popular. He's a big deal to those who are middle-of-the-roader's. As to his worth reading? "Nein!" I had to read him because he's so prevelant in my church. People said "How can you say that stuff about him if you haven't read him." Sigh. So I read him and then gave quotes to show what I was saying. I found his letters to be the most enjoyable. It shows the practical side of him and his struggles. Which he wouldn't of had to go through if he would of taken a stand on the bible as the Word of God instead of Containing the Word of God.
> 
> For a good example, compare the Barmen Declaration to the Westminister Confession of Faith. The difference between them like night and day. A confession 'light' and a real confession.
> 
> I think he reads like a devotional at best...to put him in the best terms.



Tim is your denomination the "Liberal" one? I am still not too familiar with the Presbyterian Church and the different branches.


----------



## Grymir

Goodmorning The Author of my Faith.

Yes, the PCUSA is the liberal one. But I judge Church's by what the local church's stand for, not the national body. Because for me, my Anti-Barth stance is personal. He's A big influence in my church, and not just another theologian to study. I gave some of the bad influences he has above, so let me give you some examples.

First, He denies that the Bible is the literal Word of God. That as you read the Bible and it moves you, then it becomes the Word of God. That the writers were writing what they see and did, not that the bible is written by God (The Holy Spirit) writing through people.

Second, his denial of the historicity of what the bible presents. As in it may not be historically accurate, but contains spiritual truths that we can learn about God from.

Those two were enough for me, because I was converted by reading the Bible from cover to cover. (read my about me page) It was so obviously written by God, that when any 'theologian' denies this, I know that it leads to other problems. 

He also said that we don't study God, but that we learn about Him in relationship. Which is wrong, we do study God and learn about him from the bible. His Christ centered theology epistemologically wrong. He says that we learn about God by looking through Jesus. In reality, we really have access to the Father through Jesus and can approach Him and learn about him directly.

These are a few quickly jotted details. I have wake up and go to work, so I'll post more later tonight.


----------



## DMcFadden

1. As with most neo-orthodox theologians, the Bible is a witness to Revelation, contains the Word of God, or becomes the Word of God when the Spirit uses it in your life. There is not affirmation of the propositional nature of Revelation. For Barth, Christ is the Word of God, errors in the Bible are irrelevant.

2. Barth rejects Calvin's notions of the decrees of God and of the idea of double predestination. Election is ALL about Christ. He is the reprobate one; he is the elect one.

3. I am quite offended by his relationship with his assistant, Charlotte ("Lollo"). Even granting that most of his biographers dance around the topic and try to make excuses for Barth, Seliger captures my beef in writing: "Part of any realistic response to the subject of Barth and von Kirschbaum must be anger." It has been described as "convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys." And, it lasted for 35 years! Not only did she move into the Barth household, but she and Karl lived/vacationed alone together each summer in the mountains! Even his former student and devoted follower, Eberhard Busch, spoke movingly about how painful the relationship with Charlotte was for Frau Barth to put up with over the years. Yet, when Charlotte was demented in a nursing home, Frau Barth would go to visit her and comfort her.

Van Til used to say that "Barthianism is even more hostile to the theology of Luther and Calvin than Romanism."

"Calvin is in Heaven and has had time to ponder where he went wrong in his teachings. Doubtless he is pleased that I am setting him aright." - Karl Barth


----------



## greenbaggins

Obviously Exodus 20:14 did not contain the Word of God for Barth.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

DMcFadden said:


> 1. As with most neo-orthodox theologians, the Bible is a witness to Revelation, contains the Word of God, or becomes the Word of God when the Spirit uses it in your life. There is not affirmation of the propositional nature of Revelation. For Barth, Christ is the Word of God, errors in the Bible are irrelevant.
> 
> 2. Barth rejects Calvin's notions of the decrees of God and of the idea of double predestination. Election is ALL about Christ. He is the reprobate one; he is the elect one.
> 
> 3. I am quite offended by his relationship with his assistant, Charlotte ("Lollo"). Even granting that most of his biographers dance around the topic and try to make excuses for Barth, Seliger captures my beef in writing: "Part of any realistic response to the subject of Barth and von Kirschbaum must be anger." It has been described as "convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys." And, it lasted for 35 years! Not only did she move into the Barth household, but she and Karl lived/vacationed alone together each summer in the mountains! Even his former student and devoted follower, Eberhard Busch, spoke movingly about how painful the relationship with Charlotte was for Frau Barth to put up with over the years. Yet, when Charlotte was demented in a nursing home, Frau Barth would go to visit her and comfort her.
> 
> Van Til used to say that "Barthianism is even more hostile to the theology of Luther and Calvin than Romanism."
> 
> "Calvin is in Heaven and has had time to ponder where he went wrong in his teachings. Doubtless he is pleased that I am setting him aright." - Karl Barth



Markus Barth (Karl's Son) taught here at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and according to students and administrators who were here at the time he would often refer to Charlotte as his "Mütterchen".


----------



## DMcFadden

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Markus Barth (Karl's Son) taught here at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and according to students and administrators who were here at the time he would often refer to Charlotte as his "Mütterchen".




"Mütterchen" 
Just like in the polygamous cults in Utah. I wonder if Karl Barth was related to FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

My own stab at it:


> Can anyone tell me what the deal is with Karl Barth?
> 
> Was he Reformed?


No.



> Is his work worth reading?


Yes, if you're a Pastor, probably not if you are still learning good theology. The only reason I read some of him was to answer the question: "What is the deal with Karl Barth?" I don't know that I have a much better answer after reading a few books by him and critiques of him. His theology is called Critical Realistic Dialectical theology by one author. Van Til tears him apart as being a new form of Modernism. The bottom line with him is that he rejects a historic faith in favor of the "event" of Revelation.



> I think he had an issue with the inerrancy of scripture?


In the sense that he believed that anybody who thought that the essence of the Christian faith was in historical events this is true. He saw such thinking as pagan to believe that real events mattered. This owes to a philosophical framework that doesn't allow God to interact with human history and that we can't move from history to understand God. The Scriptures testify exactly the opposite as God reveals about Himself in the way He redeems in history.

For Barth, the Word of God was not the Word of God sitting on a shelf but became the Word of God in the event of reading it. God interacts at discrete points of history in the event of Revelation but to think that the Words themselves constituted revelation of the nature of God was abhorrent to him.



> Is his view on Election correct?



No. In all of this, remember that I'm doing my best to understand him. He is very confusing.

The bottom line for Barth, however, was sort of this dialectical tension. As I understand it, Men became elect in Christ at Creation because God said No to Chaos. I know that sounds pointless and obscure but that about sums up Barth for me most of the time. He's the kind of guy that people have to try to summarize as best they can for a normal person to understand because his dialecticism makes him nearly impossible to pin down. There is a sense in Barth, though, that God elects everyone in Christ and then there is this impossible irrationality that somehow allows people to un-elect themselves (or not).

I remember hearing Van Til on a recording one time joke about Barth where Barth was so incensed about what Van Til wrote about him that he had stated that Van Til was going to hell but Van Til noted to the audience that this was unusual as Barth didn't believe anyone was going to Hell.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

WHAT? Barth Does NOt Believe in a Literal Hell????

-----Added 5/22/2009 at 06:15:20 EST-----

Can everyone send me your address so i can make out my checks to you. I have decided to drop out of seminary and pay all of you for my education!!  lol.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

He probably does in one sense and doesn't in another. I'm not an expert at him and don't really ever intend to invest the time philosophically to try to get inside his brain.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Heck, before joining the PB I didn't even know the h in Barth was silent.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

*Is that your kid?*



Semper Fidelis said:


> He probably does in one sense and doesn't in another. I'm not an expert at him and don't really ever intend to invest the time philosophically to try to get inside his brain.




Is that your kid with the batman hat? that is hillarious.

He is going to hate you when he gets older


----------



## reformed trucker

Semper Fidelis said:


> I remember hearing Van Til on a recording one time joke about Barth where Barth was so incensed about what Van Til wrote about him that he had stated that Van Til was going to hell but Van Til noted to the audience that this was unusual as Barth didn't believe anyone was going to Hell.



 Gotta love Van Til...


----------



## DMcFadden

> WHAT? Barth Does NOt Believe in a Literal Hell????



For Barth, since Christ is the reprobate and the elect, and since we are in Christ, there is really no conceptual room for hell with any ontic significance. If you want to keep it around as a theoretical place holder . . . MAYBE. But, it would never have any metaphysical significance. Because of our being in Christ, the "human face of God," it would be about as meaningful to talk about God sending people to hell as it would asking if God could make a rock too big for him to lift.


----------



## Ivan

DMcFadden said:


> Since Christ is the reprobate and the elect, and since we are in Christ, there is really no conceptual room for hell with any ontic significance. If you want to keep it around as a theoretical place holder . . . MAYBE. But, it would never have any metaphysical significance. Because of our being in Christ, the "human face of God," it would be about as meaningful to talk about God sending people to hell as it would asking if God could make a rock too big for him to lift.



Are you Barth, Jr. or something?


----------



## DMcFadden

Watch your tongue, Ivan! Just trying to answer the man's question about Barth and hell.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

DMcFadden said:


> Watch your tongue, Ivan! Just trying to answer the man's question about Barth and hell.



SO HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HELL THEM?

Listen Give it to me SIMPLE, don't make me thing!


----------



## Ivan

The Author of my Faith said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch your tongue, Ivan! Just trying to answer the man's question about Barth and hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HELL THEM?
> 
> Listen Give it to me SIMPLE, don't make me thing!
Click to expand...


Hmmm...ah...yeah...I think that's what he's saying....


----------



## Grymir

Let's not forget his almost universalism.

Barth is a hack.


----------



## Ivan

Grymir said:


> Let's not forget his almost universalism.



Wouldn't 'almost universalism' be like 'a little pregnant' ?


----------



## DMcFadden

The logic of Barth's position _should_ lead to universalism. However, he never quite brought himself to speak in such non-dialetical language. So, while he wrote in a very universalistic sounding way, he kept denying that such was what he was trying to say. So . . . go figure.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

*Article regarding Barth*

I just read an interesting article on The Reformed Paradigm — The Puritan Storm 

that confirms what most are saying on this board about Barth.



Karl Barth alarmed at Nietzsche like liberalism with its resultant tyranny, felt compelled along with other 20th century theologians to reinvent orthodoxy (deemed neo-orthodoxy or new orthodoxy). Unfortunately, Barth and his colleagues borrowed heavily on the heretical presuppositions of their more militant liberal brothers, in that they rejected confessional creedal orthodoxy (like Nietzsche convinced such notions were outmoded). Additionally, the neo-orthodox roundly reject the inspiration, infallibility and immutable authority of the Scriptures, derogatorily calling it “the paper pope.” Thus, while holding selected moral lessons of traditional Christianity, the neo-orthodox are essentially unitarian-universalists. Notwithstanding, because they have remolded God into man’s image, they remain blaspheming heretics perhaps more dangerous than their frothing liberal counterparts in that neo-orthodox tyranny is kinder and gentler replete with a beguiling smile.

The neo-orthodox have had a profound and deleterious effect on evangelicals, effectively eroding their ability and will to resist humanistic thought.When you combine the effects of Hegalian statism, Nietzsche like elitism, Darwinian dehumanization and Barth’s anesthetizing universalism, you have a full orbed comprehensive world-life-view which like the builders of the tower of Babel are seeking to dethrone God and establish man as sovereign. It should also be plain and painfully clear that evangelicalism is not only unable to cope with this challenge, but for all intents and purposes has already been neutralized by adopting some if not all of humanism’s presuppositions.


----------



## Theogenes

Gordon Clark wrote an excellent critique of Karl Barth:
Trinity Foundation


----------



## Dieter Schneider

There is some stuff on my blog. Scroll down to 'Barth'.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

QUOTE=Dieter Schneider;628766]There is some stuff on my blog. Scroll down to 'Barth'.[/QUOTE]

What no Benny Hinn?


----------



## Grymir

"The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth"?

Here's a juicy tid-bit;

Barth held to what is known as the threefold Word of God. In other words, preaching (or proclamation), scripture, and revelation are considered to be three different, yet unified forms of the Word of God. Barth's analogy was the Trinity (see CD I/1, 121). Futhermore, 

There is no distinction of degree or value between these three forms. For to the extent that proclamation really rests on recollection of the revelation attested in the Bible and is thus obedient repitition of the biblical witness, it is no less the Word of God than the Bible. And to the extent that the Bible really attests revelation it is no less the Word of God than revelation itself. As the Bible and proclamation become God's Word in virtue of the actuality of revelation, they are God's Word: the one Word of God within which there can be neither a more nor a less. Nor should we ever try to understand the three forms of God's Word in isolation. The first, revelation, is the form that underlies the other two (CD I/1, 120-121). 

Taken from here - http://www.theopedia.com/Theology_of_Karl_Barth


----------



## CDM

Any reccomendations for books by or about Barth that would sketch out his theology?

The Gordon Clark volume above looks like the ticket. But what about _The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth_?


----------



## caddy

You get a lot of Barth & Neo-Orthodoxy in Robert L. Short's books:

Amazon.com: Robert L. Short: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

For the most part it's easy to pick out those elements. It seems the later the book, the stronger the "bad" influences come in. Universalism is fairly blatant in one section of "Short Meditations."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

CDM said:


> Any reccomendations for books by or about Barth that would sketch out his theology?
> 
> The Gordon Clark volume above looks like the ticket. But what about _The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth_?


My standard answer is:

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 you find Webster's Barth (see here) for a starter read to get the lay of the land.


----------



## Grymir

I have to agree. It's best to actually read Barth. Reading what others say is fine...but nothing else reads like Barth himself. Then you will know his, umm, umm, lack of theology first hand. Nothing does that better than actually reading him. I had to read his stuff because everyone follows him at church. And that's what really turned me off to him. After reading the greats, it was a let down after the hype.

Good luck.

Sigh.


----------

