Karl Barth?
- Thread starter The Author of my Faith
- Start date
- Status
Ivan
Pastor
Wouldn't 'almost universalism' be like 'a little pregnant' ?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
Gordon Clark wrote an excellent critique of Karl Barth:
Trinity Foundation
Trinity Foundation
Dieter Schneider
Puritan Board Sophomore
The Author of my Faith
Puritan Board Freshman
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
"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
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
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
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."
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
Flatly Unflappable
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Good luck.
Sigh.
- Status
