Did ANY Of You study karl barth Theology in School?

[JesusFan]

If yes, was he considered to be reformed calvinist, and did any of his views go over in baptist churches?

 

[preachinjesus]

I've studied Barth's work for several years, specifically during my PhD.

But first, why are you so obsessed with Calvinism?

 

[12strings]

I too would be interested in the source/motivation of JesusFan's Calvinism focus.

 

[preacher4truth]

I'm interested in the arminian and anti-calvinist obsessive focus of one "other."

Unsaids is just another side of the "fascination with Calvinism" coin.

 

[Amy.G]

Maybe JF is feeling a little insecure in his Calvinist theology and needs the constant support of other Cals. :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Perhaps our brother JF loves the doctrines of grace & has fire in his belly for propagating them. I know for myself that the fire doesn't diminish in me but rather increases & I hope it is with my brother also.

By now, JF fully understands that these doctrines constitute the purest expression of Calvinism, Calvin did not invent them, nor are they characteristic of his thought alone during the Reformation period. Rather they are of scripture.

In addition Brother JF is in good company. Augustine argued for these same truths over against the denials of Pelagius. Martin Luther was in many ways a Calvinist & so were Zwingli & Tyndale. For this reason I find it more accurate to describe this theology as "Reformational" rather than "Calvinist"

Interesting that this theology won the assent of hundreds of millions of men in Switzerland, France, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, England & North America. Certainly doctrines of grace must of provided the spiritual needs of so so many....like the Huguenots suffering war and massacre, to the Pilgrims uprooting themselves perilously to seek new homes on hostile shores. Or the Scottish Covenanters persecuted for their faith.

Again my brother you are in good & solid company. WELCOME!:wavey:

 

[preacher4truth]

Perhaps our brother JF loves the doctrines of grace & has fire in his belly for propagating them. I know for myself that the fire doesn't diminish in me but rather increases & I hope it is with my brother also.

By now, JF fully understands that these doctrines constitute the purest expression of Calvinism, Calvin did not invent them, nor are they characteristic of his thought alone during the Reformation period. Rather they are of scripture.

In addition Brother JF is in good company. Augustine argued for these same truths over against the denials of Pelagius. Martin Luther was in many ways a Calvinist & so were Zwingli & Tyndale. For this reason I find it more accurate to describe this theology as "Reformational" rather than "Calvinist"

Interesting that this theology won the assent of hundreds of millions of men in Switzerland, France, Scotland, Wales, England & North America. Certainly doctrines of grace must of provided the spiritual needs of so so many....like the Huguenots suffering war and massacre, to the Pilgrims uprooting themselves perilously to seek new homes on hostile shores. Or the Scottish Covenanters persecuted for their faith.

Again my brother you are in good & solid company. WELCOME!:wavey:

Yes. In the case of jesusfan I'd call it a passion for truth, not obsession. Obsession to me better correlates to a belligerency against a school of thought. In the theological world, such obsession is typically coupled with a relentless assailment towards a theology to which the one is obsessed.

- Peace

 

[JesusFan]

I've studied Barth's work for several years, specifically during my PhD.

But first, why are you so obsessed with Calvinism?

What from his theological viewpoint have you seen carried over into current baptist thinking, if anything?

Seems that his doctrine on Election was something that might have provided a doorway to Universalism that those like Robb bell drove right through!

Not obsessed with Calvinism, many times just trying to get others to articulate more clearly from the biblical perspective on their beliefs!

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. In the case of jesusfan I'd call it a passion for truth, not obsession. Obsession to me better correlates to a belligerency against a school of thought. In the theological world, such obsession is typically coupled with a relentless assailment towards a theology to which the one is obsessed.

- Peace

since my time here on the BB, think most obsessed here have been those who actually were trying to have a view on salvation that was said to not be man saving himself, but was close to that!

 

[JesusFan]

Perhaps our brother JF loves the doctrines of grace & has fire in his belly for propagating them. I know for myself that the fire doesn't diminish in me but rather increases & I hope it is with my brother also.

By now, JF fully understands that these doctrines constitute the purest expression of Calvinism, Calvin did not invent them, nor are they characteristic of his thought alone during the Reformation period. Rather they are of scripture.

In addition Brother JF is in good company. Augustine argued for these same truths over against the denials of Pelagius. Martin Luther was in many ways a Calvinist & so were Zwingli & Tyndale. For this reason I find it more accurate to describe this theology as "Reformational" rather than "Calvinist"

Interesting that this theology won the assent of hundreds of millions of men in Switzerland, France, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, England & North America. Certainly doctrines of grace must of provided the spiritual needs of so so many....like the Huguenots suffering war and massacre, to the Pilgrims uprooting themselves perilously to seek new homes on hostile shores. Or the Scottish Covenanters persecuted for their faith.

Again my brother you are in good & solid company. WELCOME!:wavey:

thanks for kind words!

have to remember camef rom Assemblies of God background, so have migrated to seeing salvation from cal perspective...

Some might still see me as being 'crazy' baptist, as hold to DoG, Dispy eschatology, and that spritual Gifts still for today!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

thanks for kind words!

have to remember camef rom Assemblies of God background, so have migrated to seeing salvation from cal perspective...

Some might still see me as being 'crazy' baptist, as hold to DoG, Dispy eschatology, and that spritual Gifts still for today!

LOL.... & I come from a RC Background,,,,Funny how it is that we both end up here.... In my case before regeneration I never would have thought in a gazillion years "Calvinism" ....but then again I never prayed & read the bible. :godisgood:

 

[glfredrick]

If yes, was he considered to be reformed calvinist, and did any of his views go over in baptist churches?

I spent some considerable amount of time dealing with Barth's theology. Though he was of the Reformed Church, his doctrine and theology were "neo-orthodox" (new orthodoxy) as a response to Protestant Lberalism. He did take a Reformed stance in most of his theology, but differed in some ways, for instance his stance on election where he disavowed the concept of double predestination as held by supralapsarians. Barth saw no absolute decree of God in election. Barth emphasized God's "yes" towards humanity. Jesus is (essentially) the sum of God's election.

In that, Barth drifted to a place where he virtually assumed universalism, for he grasped the concept of "Christ died for the whole world" and with that being God's "yes" the whole world was in effect a partaker of divine election (a stance akin to many here who hold to a non-whatever stance).

Barth was also anti-apologetics. He did not see the gospel as "the door" but rather as "the hinge." The one who grasps and understands the mystery of God opens his or her own door in a sense, so that God, who is "for us" is not impugned by those who think that they need to do something of merit to earn His grace.

I find that Barth was considerably effective and assimilated into Baptist life in all sorts of ways, from those trained in seminaries until the late 1980s or so (and still in some) and in the ways that his theology trickled down into the people where bits and pieces of it surface without most ever even knowing that it is Barthian in nature, and not perfectly matching the Scriptural view.

Fortunately, much of Barth's Kantian philosophy, wrapped in and through his theology has now been debunked and we no longer hold to the mystery of the Word, the universal "yes" of God, etc. He was not all bad, and some of his teaching was an antidote to the rampant state of Protestant Liberalism that threatened to subsume the entire theological world, but some of his teaching set aside Christ as the Bible portrays.

 

[JesusFan]

I spent some considerable amount of time dealing with Barth's theology. Though he was of the Reformed Church, his doctrine and theology were "neo-orthodox" (new orthodoxy) as a response to Protestant Lberalism. He did take a Reformed stance in most of his theology, but differed in some ways, for instance his stance on election where he disavowed the concept of double predestination as held by supralapsarians. Barth saw no absolute decree of God in election. Barth emphasized God's "yes" towards humanity. Jesus is (essentially) the sum of God's election.

In that, Barth drifted to a place where he virtually assumed universalism, for he grasped the concept of "Christ died for the whole world" and with that being God's "yes" the whole world was in effect a partaker of divine election (a stance akin to many here who hold to a non-whatever stance).

Barth was also anti-apologetics. He did not see the gospel as "the door" but rather as "the hinge." The one who grasps and understands the mystery of God opens his or her own door in a sense, so that God, who is "for us" is not impugned by those who think that they need to do something of merit to earn His grace.

I find that Barth was considerably effective and assimilated into Baptist life in all sorts of ways, from those trained in seminaries until the late 1980s or so (and still in some) and in the ways that his theology trickled down into the people where bits and pieces of it surface without most ever even knowing that it is Barthian in nature, and not perfectly matching the Scriptural view.

Fortunately, much of Barth's Kantian philosophy, wrapped in and through his theology has now been debunked and we no longer hold to the mystery of the Word, the universal "yes" of God, etc. He was not all bad, and some of his teaching was an antidote to the rampant state of Protestant Liberalism that threatened to subsume the entire theological world, but some of his teaching set aside Christ as the Bible portrays.

wasn't it his view that basically all that we know about God in an absolute sense is through jesus, incarnate Word? Bible secondary witness, may have errors in it, but when HS makes it real to you, will be an infallible witness to jesus/Gospel?

he took it literally that ALL the promises of God are aren an dyes in Christ, and that Gods ;ove for us in Christ trumps all other things, so God really did reconcile all back through Cross, as that Adam sin "killed" off all people, while Cross made all alive again in Christ?

can see how those like RobB Bell might see their teaching seeded in barth!

 

[preachinjesus]

What from his theological viewpoint have you seen carried over into current baptist thinking, if anything?

Lots...depending on your theological commitments. Let me ask, just cuz I need to know...do you really want to get into a conversation about the depth and breadth of Karl Barth's impact on baptistic theology, a topic which has merited a dissertation length engagement by more than a few scholars.

Seems that his doctrine on Election was something that might have provided a doorway to Universalism that those like Robb bell drove right through!

We should never think that Rob Bell has accurately or reasonably handled Barth. I do think Barth's inclusivist position is troubling. Yet he does make several provisions for eternal judgment in Dogmatics.

Not obsessed with Calvinism, many times just trying to get others to articulate more clearly from the biblical perspective on their beliefs!

Well your zeal for theological elucidation might be worth tempering. For instance it isn't just a) Calvinism or b) Arminianism for theological options. You know this, yet your constantly badgering the, myopic, dualism when other, reasonable, options are available.

 

[David Lamb]

No - they don't tend to teach theology in our schools.

 

[JesusFan]

Lots...depending on your theological commitments. Let me ask, just cuz I need to know...do you really want to get into a conversation about the depth and breadth of Karl Barth's impact on baptistic theology, a topic which has merited a dissertation length engagement by more than a few scholars.

Good, that would mean that there should be several areas to pursue this furhter!

We should never think that Rob Bell has accurately or reasonably handled Barth. I do think Barth's inclusivist position is troubling. Yet he does make several provisions for eternal judgment in Dogmatics.

To his credit, barth did pull back from going to thelogical extenstion of Universalism from his theology, but just saying bell and others used him toget to where they are at!

Well your zeal for theological elucidation might be worth tempering. For instance it isn't just a) Calvinism or b) Arminianism for theological options. You know this, yet your constantly badgering the, myopic, dualism when other, reasonable, options are available.

Just curious, as I have asked several times for what those might be here on the BB, and usually just get back 'free will" grace?