Any here know the theology of karl barth?

[church mouse guy]

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.

The mainlines went wrong a long time ago and were hollowed out by people such as Barth. Now the social justice warriors are trying to infiltrate the SBC as they already have infiltrated other denominations. I don't know what the answer is but I agree with Biblical Creationists that the Foundation of Genesis was undermined during the Enlightenment and that must be repaired. Fortunately, the intellectual scientific underpinnings of the Enlightenment are basically superstition and can be laughed away but it may take millions and millions of years.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Always wanted to, and sinced have plenty of downtime here in Mi now!
Barth did seem to want to say Universalism, but came just short of commuting to it?

 

[Yeshua1]

Barth is neo-orthodox. He rejected the inerrancy of Scripture.

He would hold to the Bible become alive to you when the Spirit made it so. more subjective inspiration?

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

His view on Bible was it it becomes the witness of God to you when the Holy Spirit opens it to you, but has not inherit inspiration?

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Romans commentary and an intro to his theology!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Unlike liberalism of his time, and today even, he at least upheld Jesus Deity!

 

[JonC]

Romans commentary and an intro to his theology!

Barth's theology developed after Romans (often it is considered "pre-Barth" Barth).

 

[church mouse guy]

Unlike liberalism of his time, and today even, he at least upheld Jesus Deity!

You know, I don't know where my book that quotes from him and some others is so I would like to see the detailed statement not because I do not believe you because I do believe you but because one can often get a view into a person's theology by looking at what they say about Jesus. So I really should shut up on this subject except to say that I think that Barth is neo-orthodox. I recall once attending a lunchtime organ recital at an Episcopal Church and picking up a bulletin that described theology as a white picket fence that wore out with time and needed to be rebuilt as a new white picket fence. The problem with neo-orthodox is that spiritual things do not wear out and need replacing the way that physical things do here on earth. Episcopalians abandoned their 39 articles of faith and lost half their membership. They would lose more of their membership except that the individual churches are owned by the national headquarters and if you leave the denomination you also leave the property.

 

[Yeshua1]

Barth's theology developed after Romans (often it is considered "pre-Barth" Barth).

So his views on election and universalism would have become concrete in his systematic theology then?

 

[Yeshua1]

You know, I don't know where my book that quotes from him and some others is so I would like to see the detailed statement not because I do not believe you because I do believe you but because one can often get a view into a person's theology by looking at what they say about Jesus. So I really should shut up on this subject except to say that I think that Barth is neo-orthodox. I recall once attending a lunchtime organ recital at an Episcopal Church and picking up a bulletin that described theology as a white picket fence that wore out with time and needed to be rebuilt as a new white picket fence. The problem with neo-orthodox is that spiritual things do not wear out and need replacing the way that physical things do here on earth. Episcopalians abandoned their 39 articles of faith and lost half their membership. They would lose more of their membership except that the individual churches are owned by the national headquarters and if you leave the denomination you also leave the property.

From what I understand Barth teaching, His view on Jesus very good, but his version of universalism and scriptures not so much!

 

[JonC]

Always wanted to, and sinced have plenty of downtime here in Mi now!
Barth did seem to want to say Universalism, but came just short of commuting to it?

lol.....yep... we do have a lot of down time.

Barth did not teach universalism. But he also did not teach against universalism.

There are things to admire about his theology, and places where he is absolutely correct and offers good insight.

And there are things (a lot of things) to toss out and dislike about his theology and his personal life.

What is good is his Christ-centeredness. Many do not realize that a lot of our theologies seek what Barth would call a "back door" to God going around Christ. Barth believed that we cannot have any knowledge of God except it be through Christ.

But I have not read much of his works, just what was required reading and a bit of Romans.

 

[Yeshua1]

lol.....yep... we do have a lot of down time.

Barth did not teach universalism. But he also did not teach against universalism.

There are things to admire about his theology, and places where he is absolutely correct and offers good insight.

And there are things (a lot of things) to toss out and dislike about his theology and his personal life.

What is good is his Christ-centeredness. Many do not realize that a lot of our theologies seek what Barth would call a "back door" to God going around Christ. Barth believed that we cannot have any knowledge of God except it be through Christ.

But I have not read much of his works, just what was required reading and a bit of Romans.

he indeed is heavy on Christology, which is bad a bad thing!