What do you think of Karl Barth?

[jrdnoland]

and specifically of the book by Lauber:

Barth on the Descent into Hell- God, Atonement and the Christian Life

my wife is asking me about it and I know very little about Barth.

Also, why does a 200 page book cost about $100.00 new? Does that say something about the book?

 

[rbcbob]

Father of Neo-Orthodoxy, opposed the liberalism of his day, albeit with a paper sword.

 

[Philip]

Barth: he's a mixed bag. I like a lot of what he says, though generally he ends up being half-right. While considered the "father of Neo-Orthodoxy", he himself did not like the term and really doesn't quite fit the category anyway (far more reliance on Scripture for doctrine than normal for a modern theologian). His project was to update and refine traditional dogma for modern times. The result is an impressive superstructure on a shaky foundation (his doctrine of Scripture isn't robust enough to bear the weight that he places on it).

I have to suggest that you not read Schaeffer on Barth because Schaeffer takes Barth as the poster child for post-liberal theology, which is unfair to Barth. Barth certainly meant to be reiterating Church dogma. I think (from what I've read) that he truly did believe, albeit with some confusion.

 

[bouletheou]

I attended a liberal seminary and got a snoot full of Barth. What do you want to know?

P.S. You're going to hear a bunch more about him in the PCA. Some men have discovered an affinity with his thought. Rocky Mtn Presbytery's statement on scriptural authority has NeoOrthodoxy squarely in its gunsights on several points. Read that statement and you will get a pretty good thumbnail sketch of Barth on scripture. I don't know anything about the book you mentioned.

You can get a nice cheap book called "Dogmatics in Outline" which was one of my seminary texts. Barth's Dogmatics is something like 31 volumes. I don't know anyone who's read it who wasn't gunning for a PhD.

 

[jrdnoland]

Neo-Orthodoxy - Swiss theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner reacted strongly against the barrenness of liberalism and set forth the idea that the distance between a holy and transcendent God and sinful man is so great that inerrancy of Scripture cannot be held.

But Scripture written by fallible men, capable of errors, could be used by God to accomplish His purposes. Thus the Bible becomes inspired in its proclamation when the Holy Spirit quickens faith and obedience in its hearers. This, like liberalism, results in a subjective, existential encounter, which denies absolute propositional truth in revelation (Dictionary of Christianity, p. 1063).

If the above is saying what I think it's saying, i.e., that Barth didn't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then I think that would answer my question. That Barth would not be good for someone to read who is just starting to learn about reformed theology (like my wife and myself).

 

[Philip]

Certainly, when just getting into reformed theology, don't read moderns. Read Old Princeton theologians, read the reformers, read the Church Fathers, read the scholastics, and then go and read Barth and other moderns once you're firmly established. Barth is useful if and only if one has a firm grounding. Otherwise, reading him will lead only to confusion and error.

 

[bouletheou]

If the above is saying what I think it's saying, i.e., that Barth didn't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, then I think that would answer my question. That Barth would not be good for someone to read who is just starting to learn about reformed theology (like my wife and myself).

jrdnoland,

Exactly. Barth would even go further than just the errancy of scripture. He would even be open to denying the historicity of much of scripture. The things that scripture describe happen in the "heilgeschichte" (lit. "the holy history") a realm somewhere between Tolkein's Middle Earth and Lewis' Narnia. What matters is the faith that these stories "create" in us, which enables us to live authentically. They don't need to be literally true to have that effect. They function (via the power of the Holy Spirit, Barth would say) in the same way as Nietzsche's myths do. The stories form us.

He was also an inconsistent universalist. His disciples, like Jacques Ellul (the theologian behind "The Shack") were/are consistent universalists, mostly.

One of his disciples, Edvard Schweitzer, then an old man, came and spoke at chapel when I was at the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Heretic Factory in the mid 1990's. He chose one of the miracle texts in John's gospel (I forget which one) and expounded it. When he was done he said, "Now.... did zis really happen? It does not matter. Vat matters is zat the story forms us and changes us as God vould have us changed."

If you want a good primer on Reformed theology that's readable and very, very practical, get Wilhelmus A Brakel's "The Christian's Reasonable Service" in four volumes. Talk to Steve at Reformation Heritage books up in Michigan. If you can find four other people to go in with you, he'll sell five sets at at time at a price of $70 per set. Every page is pure gold. You can't go wrong.

 

[Grymir]

What do I think of Barth? He would be my arch-nemesis. Take a look at the PCUSA. What has happened in my church can be an example of alot of people holding Barth in high regards.

One example. The Bible is not the written Word of God, but contains the Word of God, when the writers move you. Another, you should only mention sin in reference to Jesus on the Cross. Never call people such. (Taken from Prayer and Preaching)

There are much better theologians to read, especially if you are just starting out. I had heard of him before, but when I joined the PCUSA, I had to read some of his stuff, because that's where the battle was taking place in my church. Get well grounded, then read some of his stuff you can find online, and you will see what I mean. A lot of high sounding words, but it turns into fluff upon reading it.

What people say above about him is very true.

Sigh, I must be in a nice mood today..................

 

[Philip]

What do I think of Barth? He would be my arch-nemesis.

Not for me---that would be Schleiermacher or Tillich.

Barth's theology, in my opinion, has much to offer if taken in conjunction with (rather than in opposition to) traditional orthodoxy. His doctrine of revelation in Christ, for example, is correct if coupled with a robust doctrine of Scripture.

When it comes to modern theologians, Barth is the closest to orthodoxy (indeed, certain of his philosophical positions look very similar to Van Til). Therefore he deserves the most careful and balanced treatment.