# What did Karl Barth teach ?



## Mayflower (Nov 25, 2005)

I never read anything from Karl Barth, i only heard from others that you have to carefull with his theology because he hath some false teaching ? 

Can any explain me in short what he teach and why is so wrong in his teaching.

Is the book written by C. van Till i good tool to understand Barth for someone like me who is not familiar with his teaching ?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 25, 2005)

For one thing, Barth had a very messed-up idea of revelation, and of the Scriptures.

Barth did not believe that the Scriptures themselves are revelation. Rather, he said that they were merely men's written records of revelation. While the events themselves were revelation, the written records of these events are *not* revelation.

Thus, according to Barth, since the Bible is only fallible man's written record of revelation that was seen, the Bible itself is fallible. 

Clearly, this Barthian philosophy causes numerous problems. For example:

1) An event is not revelation, unless it is accompanied by words to interpret the event. Two million slave people eating sheep and leaving Egypt one day is not revelation . . . it is just a historical fact. It's not revelation until God interprets the event for us, to show us that this event was part of God's redemptive plan for man. Likewise, one man dying on a Roman cross 2000 years ago is not revelation, anymore than it is revelation to know that 2 other men died on Roman crosses the same day. The phrase "Jesus died" is not revelation. But the phrase "Jesus died for our sins" IS revelation, because it conveys not only the event, but the interpretation of the event. --- *But Barth's theology is directly contrary to this line of thinking. Barth taught that the events were revelation, but that the written interpretations of the events were not revelation. This disjunction is both illogical and unscriptural.*

2) If the written records (i.e. the Bible) of revelation are manmade and therefore fallible, then we don't even know for sure that the _events_ have been recorded accurately! If Scripture is subject to error, then we really don't have _any_ revelation now, because we don't really know _which_ parts of Scripture are in error. What if the _sola fide_ Gospel is one of the errors in the Bible? Then we are without hope! *Thus, at this point too, Barth's theology fails.*




[Edited on 11-25-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Nov 25, 2005)

Also, Karl Barth utterly rejected the idea of _general revelation_. Barth refused to believe that anything in nature can reveal God to man.

But this line of thinking is in direct contradiction to Romans 1 (and other Scriptures). 

Also, this line of thinking pulls the rug of responsibility out from under fallen man. If man could have no natural knowledge of God, then he might have some excuse for his alienation from the Creator. But one of the reasons each fallen man is so culpable before God, is because general revelation alone is so clear, universal, and inescapable. The problem with general revelation is not a lack of light. Rather, the problem is with man's blindness to that light. As Romans 1 says, the clarity of general revelation leaves man "without excuse". --- But Barth would have us deny that general revelation even _exists._


----------



## Mayflower (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> For one thing, Barth had a very messed-up idea of revelation, and of the Scriptures.
> 
> Barth did not believe that the Scriptures themselves are revelation. Rather, he said that they were merely men's written records of revelation. While the events themselves were revelation, the written records of these events are *not* revelation.
> ...




Thanks biblelighthouse. Have you or do you know some books written by some trustfull authors who are dealing with the teaching of Barth ?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 25, 2005)

Van Til's _Christianity and Barthianism_ is an excellent critique of Barth and neo-orthodoxy.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 25, 2005)

Here's a good overview: 

http://www.theopedia.com/Karl_Barth

Barth was called neo-Orthodox because he attacked 19th century German liberalism, but as Joseph noted, he assumed the Bible is not necessarily scientifically or historically accurate. He also later embraced universalism.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> I never read anything from Karl Barth, i only heard from others that you have to carefull with his theology because he hath some false teaching ?
> 
> Can any explain me in short what he teach and why is so wrong in his teaching.
> ...



Ralph,

Among the better books on Barth are:

Berkouwer, G. C. _The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth_, London, 1956. (you can probably find this in Nederlands)

Klooster, F. H. _The Significance of Barth's Theology. An Appraisal: With Special Reference to Election and Reconciliation _(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961).

McCormack, Bruce, _The Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology of Karl Barth _(Oxford, 1995).

Van Til, C. _Barth's Christology _(Philipsburg, 1962)

"”"” _Christianity and Barthianism_ (Phillipsburg, 1977)

"”"” _Karl Barth and Evangelicalism _(Phillipsburg, 1964)

"”"” _The New Modernism _(Philipsburg, 1946)

Of these the three most important are Van Til's _The New Modernism_ which is the most profound critique of Barth's theology. That work, however, should be read with two others: 

Berkouwer's _Triumph..._ is a gentler, more patient critique. From Berkouwer one gets a much clearer understanding of why anyone would find Barth attractive. The rhetorical (not theological) problem with CVT's critique of Barth is that he opens with the 20mm guns on p. 1. He never really gives the reader a survey of Barth or an explanation of why anyone would find B attractive. As a consequence, virtually no Barth scholar can admit to reading CVT. It's almost the equivalent of a dirty book among Barth scholars! 

Finally, Bruce McCormack's book is a brilliant survey and explanation of Barth's theology. He places Barth in his early 20th century philosophical and theological context. In many ways McCormack makes Van Til's case that Barth was not really "orthodox" neo- or otherwise. 

It would be wise to read McCormack first, then Berkouwer, then Van Til.

If I may, I do think that we orthodox confessional types should also read Barth himself. I meet far too many who talk about Barth without ever having read him. Our critiques of him have little credibility if they are not grounded in first-hand knowledge. Sometimes he is made into a sort of evil bogeyman by critics so that when folk (e.g., broader evangelicals, where Barth is often regarded as a hero or model) do read him they find him to be much more orthodox than they expected which makes him more and not less credible. In other words, unless our critiques of Barth are intelligent they may have the unintended consequence of pushing folk toward him rather than toward confessional orthodoxy.

rsc


----------



## Mayflower (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> ...



Thank you very much Scott for the information concerning Barth.

I heard that Berkouwer later in his life embarced the teachings of Barth an that he even wrote a book to defense him.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Yes, GCB began his career as a strong critic of Barth, became a "moderate" (in the volume above) and then came to embrace Barth later. That is why those three works should be read together. They help balance one another.

rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> If I may, I do think that we orthodox confessional types should also read Barth himself. I meet far too many who talk about Barth without ever having read him. Our critiques of him have little credibility if they are not grounded in first-hand knowledge. Sometimes he is made into a sort of evil bogeyman by critics so that when folk (e.g., broader evangelicals, where Barth is often regarded as a hero or model) do read him they find him to be much more orthodox than they expected which makes him more and not less credible. In other words, unless our critiques of Barth are intelligent they may have the unintended consequence of pushing folk toward him rather than toward confessional orthodoxy.
> 
> rsc


Which book(s) by Barth would you recommend?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Let us be clear, Clark is not "commending" Barth but simply saying that if one is going to criticize KB one should read him.

Barth's earlier theology (if there was such a thing) is evident in Barth, Karl. _The Word of God and the Word of Man_. Translated by D. Horton: The Pilgrim Press, 1928.

This is a late accessible summary: 

Barth, Karl. _Evangelical Theology: An Introduction_. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1963.

The most important work is: 

Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 13 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936-1969.

Barth wrote a great deal. His thought or at least form of expression evolved. He is difficult to read and certainly NOT to read as though he was orthodox. 

It is clear that he did not accept most of Scripture as historical. He regarded most of it as "saga." He did accept the resurrection as a fact, but he did not regard the Scriptures as the confessions do, as the inspired, inerrant word of God. He regarded Scripture as the way God reveals his Word (existentially) to us. 

He was, in my judgment, universalist (everyone is saved) in soteriology. He rejected (and is the source of most modern confusion on this) the Protestant Law/Gospel distinction and most of confessional and traditional covenant theology. 

He rejected the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption. Oddly, some Barthians have been quite stout on the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, while others have been content to "cash it in." 

He also became a baptist late in his career because, in my view, the baptist position fits better with his existentialism. 

Though his followers have spent decades accusing Reformed orthodoxy of being "decree" centered, Barth's theology is entirely controlled by the decree of election, which ultimately determines and swallows up everything. Where his followers often accuse orthodoxy of starting a priori with the decree and deducing a whole system from it, it seems to me this is close to what Barth actually did! 

rsc


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 26, 2005)

Ohhhh, wait, you said Barth, not Barf.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


Roger. I knew you didn't think Barth was orthodox. You just suggested that we ought to read Barth for ourselves. I was trying to figure out where to start. Is there a compendium of his works so I can just get an abridged version? There are so many orthodox works that I've yet to read that I try to keep the unorthodox stuff to a minimum.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



The 1963 work is fairly brief. There is a compendium of the dogmatics too -- I think it's called Dogmatics in Outline. 

rsc


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 26, 2005)

I have read a number of Barth's works. His book The Epistle to the Romans was one of his first books out that ripped Liberals. It really put him on the map. His book on the Theology of John Calvin is interesting (In this book he really boosts Luther and down plays Calvin) and I have also ready some of his Church Dogmatics. He is definately a Universalist (he hits Calvin hard on predestination). He points out in his book on Romans that we are saved through our existential self.

I read an article about what Machen though of Barth and it basically said that Machen thought he was brilliant but half the time he couldn't figure out what he was talking about.

The key to Barth is that he will use Reformed language but he means something totally different.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> The key to Barth is that he will use Reformed language but he means something totally different.



That sounds familiar in our current theological climate, doesn't it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 27, 2005)

I have a report I wrote in seminary on Karl Barth I could make available via e-mail. It is even more (!) dense and "academic"  , and less accessible (  , if that is possible) than many of my posts here.  Sorry.

I relied mainly, though not exclusively, on secondary sources. But I felt as though I understood him better (though not much appreciating him) by the effort.



By the way, in answer to the question regarding a Barth "anthology," you could try: McTavish, John and Harold Wells, eds. _Karl Barth: Preaching Through the Christian Year._ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. This book excerpts chunks of Barth's own work mainly from the massive Church Dogmatics. It definitely gives you a flavor of his style, and helps you see why he appealed to so many as "rain", after liberalism had turned vast stretches of the church and theology into desert. He claimed to have enough of speculative theology, and returned to a "biblical theology," but while he was "objective" (in a strained sort of way) he remained thoroughly existential in his approach. "What does this Scripture say *to me?"* over against "What does this Scripture say?"

This, and his 2nd edtion _Epistle to the Romans_ were the only primary sources I could turn to in compiling my report. No great loss...


----------



## Greg (Nov 29, 2005)

As I have begun my study on Covenant Theology, I recently read a series of articles written by J. Ligon Duncan in which he discusses Barth's take on man's relation toward God prior to the Fall. Here is the article:

Covenant Theology

Here's basically what he wrote:



> Now why is that significant? It is going to be very important for you to understand that this is the point at which Karl Barth´s critique of Covenant Theology fails most dramatically. And unfortunately many evangelicals have picked up on some of Barth´s ideas at this point and have imported them unwittingly into their own Covenant Theology, so I am quite keen for you to understand how Barth errs here. Barth wants to argue that all, all of God´s dealings with man are by grace, and that all of God´s dealings with man are through Christ, and that Christ´s mediation is therefore not a post-fall office or function. It is an eternal function that occurs prior to the fall in human experience. You hear what Barth is saying there? He is saying that from the very beginning God had to relate to man by grace and through Christ. And he basically says that the reason was because of the finiteness of man. And unfortunately you see here a category confusion between finiteness and sin. Now we are going to talk about this in the next point. But I want to introduce it here.
> 
> Basically (and Professor Barth would be bouncing off the ceiling if I said this in his presence, and he would deny it up and down, but I think I could prove it to you if you gave me enough time), Barth says that man´s fundamental problem in relating to God is not sin, it is that he is man. And in my opinion, and in the historic opinion of the church for two thousand years, that is not the Bible´s view of man´s basic problem in relationship to God. Notice that God has no problem interacting and interrelating to Adam in an unmediated way in the Garden. Adam understands Him. God talks to him. They walk together in the Garden in the cool of the day. There are stipulations, obligations, relationships, blessings, and no hint of a problem of God entering into a relationship with Adam. But Barth wants to say that it is our very creatureliness that separates us from God.
> 
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 30, 2005)

Ligon is exactly right. Barth, ironically like the medievals, made the problem our humanity, our finitude. He has no real place for history in his theology. As Van Til said, Barth's God is always threatened with "non-being." 

In reaction, Barth (again most ironically) became a supralapsarian, becoming the caricature he so often criticized where the decree swallows up everything else. This was Berkouwer's conclusion in the 1950's.

rsc


----------

