Barth?

[SavedSinner]

Barth tried to separate God's Word from the Bible ("the Bible isn't the Word of God. The Bible contains the Word of God"). Hence his neo-orthodoxy. And, it's pretty much all downhill from there.

The attempt, in recent years, to rehabilitate Dietrich Bonhoeffer, also bugs me, and for the same reason - his neo-orthdoxy.

As for the original German liberalism of the 19th century, you should read The Tubingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur by Horton Harris (1975; republished by Baker in 1990). It's a real eye-opener.

---
The Americans rehabilitate Bonhoeffer in the 2000s after the E. German Stalinists claimed him as one of their own after Honecker took over as Secretary of the central committee and made Bonhoeffer/Barth their official "church in socialism" policy in the 70s. And what was the fruit of this theology in the 70s/80s/90s and beyond? They printed Bonhoeffer books, Bonhoeffer kind of preaching from all the pulpits, used state-enterprises in a Soviet-occupied country to print Luther Bibles and Bonhoeffer/Barth nonsense and what was the result?

 

[bookslover]

He seemed to hold with the Bible becoming the word of God to us once the Holy Spirit made it seem real to us, and not before that would happen.

. . .thereby making one's relationship with the Bible almost completely subjective.

 

[Dachaser]

. . .thereby making one's relationship with the Bible almost completely subjective.

We then get caught up in the ole the Lord showed me this, and told me that scenario.

 

[jwright82]

I think they're both wrong. But both seem to captivate us. Thats my question why can't they both just go away? How long do we need to keep talking about them?

 

[py3ak]

How long do we need to keep talking about them?

Until we learn to say that the Emperor has no clothes, regardless of what that might make others think of us.

Or, until time has distinguished who deserves a chapter and who gets a footnote.

 

[Held Fast]

Barth is significant in the same manner Arminius is significant - we should be grateful even for the heretics because they make us take theology seriously. [Not necessarily calling Barth a heretic, I just don't hang on his every word and gesture.]

 

[jwright82]

Both very posts.

 

[Dachaser]

Barth is significant in the same manner Arminius is significant - we should be grateful even for the heretics because they make us take theology seriously. [Not necessarily calling Barth a heretic, I just don't hang on his every word and gesture.]

Based upon his views regarding the scriptures and possible Universalism, would he really be a great theologian even?

 

[arapahoepark]

Based upon his views regarding the scriptures and possible Universalism, would he really be a great theologian even?

He'd be great as Peter the Great is.

 

[Held Fast]

Based upon his views regarding the scriptures and possible Universalism, would he really be a great theologian even?

I wouldn't use the word great as a descriptor of anything he did, and certainly not with theologian. He has, sadly, had a wide influence in the reformed churches who draw their pastors and theologians from PTS and UTS, and others, and therefore must be reckoned with.

 

[Justified]

Based upon his views regarding the scriptures and possible Universalism, would he really be a great theologian even?

I don't know. Is Gregory of Nyssa a great theologian?

 

[Dachaser]

I wouldn't use the word great as a descriptor of anything he did, and certainly not with theologian. He has, sadly, had a wide influence in the reformed churches who draw their pastors and theologians from PTS and UTS, and others, and therefore must be reckoned with.

His views were indeed influential and interesting, but would not seem to be great to me, as he denied or at least redefined some basic theological terms, such as inspiration and election..