-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Any here know the theology of karl barth?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Barth is known for his objection to liberalism. Since he was Reformed I can see how one would see his doctrine (his later doctrine) to logically conclude with universalism, but he insisted it did not.
I don't know that I'd get that from Romans, though. I remember TCasdidy saying Barth's Church Dogmatics was important in his education but that Romans was pre-Barth in a way.
I personally did not get that from Romans.
I stick with my love for fish but my distain for those little bones. Eat the meat, spit out the bones.
I don't know that I'd get that from Romans, though. I remember TCasdidy saying Barth's Church Dogmatics was important in his education but that Romans was pre-Barth in a way.
I personally did not get that from Romans.
I stick with my love for fish but my distain for those little bones. Eat the meat, spit out the bones.
I thought that Barth was neo-orthodox. I could never read him. I become nauseated reading stuff like that.
I might have read him somewhere where he stated that in his theology Jesus was the one elected for all humanity, so all were elect in Him unto salvation?
For the time, during heyday of German critical theology, he seemed like a conservative Christian!
That he was called a conservative Christian always puzzled me, also. I never understood him. I guess that I was born and raised in a conservative Christian family.
he accepted Paul as an Inspired Apostle, accepted jesus as Lord and was physically resurrected, unlike many of his time in Germany!
I don't recall how he defined Jesus.
Lord and God... Just seemed to hold to Universalism , but would never say yes for certain!
Barth is neo-orthodox. He rejected the inerrancy of Scripture.
He defined Jesus as God. If anything, Barth had one of the most Christ-centered theologies. But sometimes this was to a fault (like his treatment of the nature of Scripture and God's Word).
The problem is we cannot just read Barth without studying his worldview and understand what he is saying.
Barth is difficult. What made you decide to study Barth, anyway?
He is neo-orthodox. He had a low view of Scripture. That is what makes him tedious--he is cultic.
He is neo-orthodox (not cultic). Many are. That is why we do not follow men.
Neo-orthodox is cultic. It is liberal theology. The Episcopal Church is neo-orthodox.
I do not understand what you mean. Barth is neo-orthodox, but his theology stands in contrast to liberal theology. Reformed Baptist doctrine us in many ways neo-orthodox. But it us not liberal theology.
I guess it really does not matter. I do not have the time or inclination to read Barth.
I was just curious.
What works have you read of Barth?
Somewhere I have a book on neo-orthodox theology. True that he is against liberal theology of the 19th century but he does not support Fundamentalism because of his low opinion of Scripture. I don't like any of the neo-orthodox. I have only read excerpts of Barth. I do not like reading unorthodox or cult theology so I am not expert on much of what the cults say. I classify neo-orthodox as liberal in general because of their infiltration of the Episcopal Church but I see the problem that you point out about their rejection of pure liberalism. I will have to just say that neo-orthodox is unorthodox.
I agree. It is hard (perhaps even unfair) to evaluate people outside of their environment (like condemning George Whitfield for his support of slavery, and here Barth in relation to our theology).
I became a Baptist to escape mainline theology and it is grievous to me that people like Greear and Russell are able to continue in office for another year because of this medical emergency but it would be improvident to do anything else but wait another year. The older generation has gone and the Boomers have not amounted to much. Fundamentalism deserves credit for their unsung work of the last century and a half. I myself believe the Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC 100%.
I am also SBC. But to illustrate my point, to me Baptist is mainline theology. Our backgrounds have an affect on how we see things, I guess.