Featured Karl Barth

Thank you. I thought for a bit that I might be out here all alone.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

I agree with you (I was using MacArthur, as I indicated, as illustration). I guess I’m wondering why it is acceptable to denounce Karl Barth and Søren Kierkegaard based on second hand information, opinion, and interpretation but it is objectionable to do the same to John MacArthur. I wonder even more since MacArthur is at least here to defend his works while the other two are not.

We cannot deal with another’s theology without having engaged that theology from the authors perspective, words, and works (first hand information). On this thread you have denounced both Barth and Kierkegard by interacting with opinions others have formed of their ideas. And you are absolutely correct that this is not right as it equates to little more than gossip.

Even when we disagree with their theology it should be legitimate disagreement and not merely agreement with another’s opinion. I do not agree with Barth, Kierkegaard, or MacArthur on several issues. I think that if you were to read and understand Barth you would find both common ground and places of strong disagreement. And that would be fair discussion. But what we have here is not fair.

 

Sin is sin. I don't care how long it went on.

Yes, you are right. Poor wording on my part. I mean “justified in his own mind” but rationalized would be the objective (and correct) word.

Sin is sin. A pastor refusing to give up a desire or pleasure when it is even preached from his own pulpit as a sin is in no means being faithful to one’s calling. This was not a small matter with some of his time (as evidenced by Dr. Pentecost’s sermon). Spurgeon even rationalized it as “smoking to God’s glory.” Unless you are willing to category sin and explain which is appropriate to hold as unrepentant, then it is exactly the same issue but a different sin.

The Daily Telegraph, Sep. 23, 1874.

Yes, but only to highlight the absurdity of concluding sin un-repented is proof of an unsaved life.

Why not, as Calvin certainly considered the Baptist understanding of “believer’s baptism” as heresy? Is it not heresy to "counter Scripture"?

All of that to get to this:

There you go, brother. This is what I’m talking about. Discuss the doctrine and not the person.

When we talk about people we can only see flaw. Look at Tozer (I like Tozer’s works, but few would see his support of his family as anything but neglect). I mentioned Spurgeon (I also like Spurgeon’s works). I simply don’t care about the lives these men lived (except for idle curiosity or maybe illustration). I care about the doctrines they taught. And after so many swings you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Barth’s doctrine should be the topic (not from secondary sources but from Barth’s works). Whether right or wrong, or a mixture of both, we look at the theology of these men, not their personal lives. And that is where the true discussion begins.

 

I need to make a clarification (if it is not already clear). As far as I know, Rippon and I agree on many issues (most that we have discussed insofar as theology we hold). I am not fighting to defend Barth's theology. In fact, I am doing the exact opposite. I am suggesting that Barth's theology be allowed to stand on its own, to stand in areas it will stand and fall in areas it will fall.

I am sure that Rippon has arrived at the conclusions he holds through reading Barth’s works, and he takes exception to some doctrine that does not settle with his idea of orthodoxy. And that is a fair position for him to hold. I do not always agree with Barth. I think that quite a bit of his theology is reactionary to his circumstances and against liberal theology. That is natural, hence the importance of examining these things. Sometimes it is just as important to learn of the reasons behind doctrines in which we disagree.

What I object to is those who reject Barth, determine he is a heretic, and as proof offer someone else’s opinion. That is my objection here. Not that Barth was a sinner, he was. Not that he had questionable views, I believe he did. But those flaws and those dissenting opinions do not diminish the fact that his theology was extraordinarily influential within the Church as a whole. It does not diminish those areas where Karl Barth was right, where he brought to the forefront issues that were at hand. It would be foolish, at least for a student of theology, not to at least learn what the man taught.

I’m not saying that everyone should read Barth and make up their own minds. I am saying that people who denounce theologies on the basis of another’s opinion or interpretation are bearing false witness as they truly do not know what they say is true. They should refrain from offering an opinion (as the opinion they claim and offer is not their own).

 

I think that this is due to his understanding both of God's ultimate freedom and this as expressed in electon. Barth views election as Christ-centered (most Calvinists instead view election as God's absolute decree). God elected to become man in the person of Jesus, Jesus elected to take unto himself all of humanity (this is also seen in early church doctrine). But then Barth seems to hold that all men by virtue of Christ are elect. Those who do not believe have not recognized that election. He denies this is universal salvation (all may not be saved) but also rejects the possibility that God may save all men.

There is a sense where I would agree with Barth, but there is another where I wouldn't. I am by no means an expert on Barth, in fact many here could address this better than I and they are welcome to correct my misunderstanding of his theology. But it seems to me that a difficulty here is the idea that the Bible is the Word of God insofar as it communicates that Word. Like Søren Kierkegaard, Barth focuses less on God’s revelation through Scripture and more on the Spirit. To me, this places the gospel message in somewhat of a subjective light.

Where I would agree in a sense with Barth is that I also believe election to be Christ centered. I don’t think this excludes God’s election of men (individually) before the foundation of the earth, but I do think that it includes a sense of God electing all of humanity as well. There is a way, I suppose, that this is double predestination. Some are elected to be vessels of wrath and some vessels of mercy – but the crux of the election is Christ (not necessarily the decree). In other words, all of humanity is reconciled to God through Christ. This being so, we urge men to be reconciled to God (through Christ). On the threshing floor the wheat and chaff is separated, the wheat taken in and the chaff burned. But this is determined in and through Christ. Those who perish do not perish apart from Christ, but under His judgment (He knows them not).

So while I appreciate Barth’s theology (insofar as I understand it) on this issue, I disagree with his conclusions (there is no possibility, in my understanding, for universal salvation although I can grant that all of humanity could still be reconciled to God through Christ).

And I'm sure I misrepresented Barth....but it was not intentional. Frown

 

BTW, Jon, Lewis was excellent on pointing out the value of reading authors of different eras because what they took for granted because of the times in which they lived — the world view they either unconsciously adopted or were fighting against — becomes clear in hindsight while we are often blind to our own presuppositions.

 

I should have said "along with." I can't say I agree with some of his views but they were not necessarily stand alone appendages to his theology.

 

While I do not wholeheartedly endorse that view, Lewis' refusal to adopt a rationalistic dichotomy between "fact" and "myth" paradoxically has from my standpoint reinforced orthodoxy. "Myth" as "hyperfact" is by no means a worthless concept in a rationalistic and materialist world. But I digress and have gone down a rabbit trail far from Barth ... my apologies. (But you can expect that when you put Chesterton in your signature line.)

 

I don't think that this rabbit trail is too far off the main path (considering the starting point was a John MacArthur assessment of Barth). In fact, the argument here against Barth would probably stand against Lewis as well (his view of Genesis, a “not quite” universalism approach, a not completely inerrant Bible….to name a few).

The problem is when we denounce the theologies of others based on trusted hearsay then we are never open to potential errors in our own understanding. And there are errors in our understanding (not all of our perceptions are right, and what are right may not be complete). The earlier we deny the legitimacy of opinions other than the ones we share the more potential for error we will hold. I think this is why some bad theologies exist (e.g., KJVO-ism), and why some others dogmatically and blindly hold on to their understanding. But that's another rabbit trail.

I changed my signature line just before I read your post. I'm tempted to change it back to....but it was time for a new one (the next one will probably be Chesterton). I changed it to Lewis for now .

For me, I'll continue to read Barth, Lewis, and Kierkegaard. I don't think Lewis' view is worthless at all, and neither are many others that I do not fully accept.

 

I am all against hearsay and cherry-picking. Who of us, should it come to that, could absolutely defend every word we have spoken without wanting to provide some clarifications or emendations?

On Lewis, I think I can say I know firsthand all his questionable propositions, as well as his mighty defense of historic Christianity. He was, at heart, a middle-of-the-road Anglican who was trying to deal as best he could with the onslaught of modernism and, yes, heresy, that was attacking the church. He — as he might have pointed out from hindsight — may have pressed too far in some areas that he might have later regretted. Who knows? Yet he was an earnest defender of the faith when many of his fellow Anglicans were setting sail for terra incognita. His faults I forgive him; for his steadfast defense of Christianity I love him. At a time I was struggling with the fundamentalism I had grown up in, he was a breath of fresh air, a voice of reason, who told me that the great truths of Christianity need not be jettisoned in the wake of materialism and unreason and fashion. Without him I suppose I would be an agnostic or worse. (I owe a certain amount to her writing style, as well, but for that I, and not he, am to blame.)

I do think that Lewis gets some bad press on universalism; his primary focus, IIRC, was to point out some "universalist" passages in Paul — not necessarily to defend universalism (though he might hope for it), but to defend Paul from the attacks of modernists.

From his introduction to Letters to Young Churches (the J.B. Phillips translation):

"A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the Gospels) and that St Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the Epistles).

This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts come from the mouth of Our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St Paul. If it could be proved that St Paul altered the teaching of his Master in any way, he altered it in exactly the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed.

"But there is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St Paul’s. The Epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The Gospels came later. They are not ‘the gospel’, the statement of the Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted ‘the gospel’. They leave out many of the ‘complications’ (that is, the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the Epistles are more primitive and more central than the Gospels-though not, of course, than the great events which the Gospels recount. God’s act (the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis of it comes in the Epistles: then, when the generation who had known the Lord was dying out, the Gospels were composed to provide for believers a record of the great Act and of some of the Lord’s sayings. The ordinary popular conception has put everything upside down.

"Nor is the cause far to seek. In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage of which you do no yet attack the King in person. You say, ‘The King is all right. It is his Ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans—which, I’m sure, are good plans if only the Ministers would let them take effect.’ And the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers: only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself.

"In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St. Paul was really on a stage in the revolt against Christ. Men were not ready in large numbers to attack Christ Himself. They made the normal first move—that of attacking one of His principal ministers. Everything they disliked in Christianity was therefore attributed to St Paul. It is unfortunate that their case could not impress anyone who had really read the Gospels and the Epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the first victory was won. St Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step—the attack on the King Himself."

And I will note that I ran across an Anglican bishop in Australia who was lambasting Bishop Spong, who is, not to mince words, either an an apostate or heathen. The Australian was quoting B.F. Westcott, he of KJVO obloquy, for defending the very foundations of the Christian faith. I'm sure Westcott doesn't pass muster for modern Baptists, but he stood manfully for orthodoxy in his time, even if we can't approve every step he took.

BTW: I'm getting ready to start an online study of Augustine's Confessions.

 

Your description of his view of the Bible is not unique in any means to Barth. While I disagree with the position, it does carry the point that apart from the Spirit the Word of God is not communicated through Scripture (maybe not Barth's point....but it is mine). To many, the Bible is merely a book that the Spirit brings to life. In other words, some look to that personal revealing of God's Word as the Word of God. An atheist reading the bible as literature does not read God's Word whereas you, reading with the guidance and unveiling of the Holy Spirit, are reading the Word of God.

I'm not sure that it is fair to label Barth's theology as "Universalism,"....mostly because it is not. At it's root, I agree with Barth (as does many....including the early church). But as his theology develops I disagree at several places. If you want to understand why Barth's theology is normally not called "universalism" then read how his understanding of election (and the elect) differs from your own understanding.