Your question is an oxymoron. Neo-Orthodoxy is not Theological Liberalism. Neo-Orthodoxy was a reaction against Theological Liberalism.
-
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!
Karl Barth
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
It is untrue in that your pastor friend from down the road fails to understand the central theme of Barth's Theology.
In Barth’s view, scientists and historians must be permitted to offer scientific and historical explanations of miracles, but Christians recognise that there is another “level of interpretation.” Here, Christians situate the event within “a larger, more encompassing framework,” and it is this framework that allows them to perceive the event as an act of God.
In other words, what an unbeliever may understand to be a mere coincidence the Christian would see evidence for the working of the Hand of God.
When Barth makes such statements it must be understood that He is talking about miracles of the second order. God temporarily intervening in the normal course of human events in such a way as to provide what is needed for His child or children while obscuring His actions from unbelievers. Rather like Christ did with parables. To be understood by His followers but not understood by the lost.
Perhaps this is not what I meant. I meant theological liberalism.
Perhaps I used the wrong word.
Perhaps he is misinformed as he also is quite informed by Mac and himself having graduated from the Masters Seminary. Back to the books I search for more quotes on Barth.
Well well I looked at Reckless Faith and Mac does not speak highly of him as he ties him to kierkegaard. I looked at a quote by Millard Ericsson in his systematic theology and he tied him to liberalism. But then I looked at the Evangelical Dictionary of theology and got a different story so it would seem that Mac and Ericsson are wrong in tying Barth to liberalism as Barth reacted against liberalism.
By all appearances it would appear that I am wrong on this one. This is perhaps the danger of getting information from third party sources who may be misinformed on a subject or person.
Never let someone else do your thinking for you. The best way to find out what Barth believed is to read Barth. Not what somebody says about Barth. To know Barth, read Barth.
Never let someone else do your thinking for you. The best way to find out what Barth believed is to read Barth. Not what somebody says about Barth. To know Barth, read Barth.
The dictionary of theology is hardly biased.
How do you know that? What is the theological background and positions of the contributors?
Then you don't mean Karl Barth.
You will probably find things with him with which to disagree, Evan. I think that's normal. As you said, you don't agree with 5% of what MacArthur says, and given how much he talks that could amount to quite a bit of disagreeing going on. Laugh
I have a question, Evan, for my own clarification and I apologize for not asking earlier. I was in a mall on my phone, and simply did not notice your comment.
Were you saying that we should ignore God's work through John Wesley because he was not a Calvinist? Is that the criteria.....Calvinism?
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Good luck with that one for Evan####Never let someone else do your thinking for you. The best way to find out what Barth believed is to read Barth. Not what somebody says about Barth. To know Barth, read Barth.
Nah....Soren Kierkegaard died in 1855 (or something like that). They had no ties.
Actually, I'm reading "Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing" and then I'm going to re-read "Fear and Trembling". I have taken some insights that he offers regarding James 4:8. Does that mean I'm tied to Kierkegaard?
(hint....I don't take Barth, Kierkegaard, or MacArthur as authorities of my faith...but I do try to learn from all three)
I think that was Mac's point as somehow Barth learned from Soren.
Wrong. I listen to Hank Hanagraaf, Charles Stanley, among other non-Calvinist. I never said we cannot learn from non-Calvinist. Now there are Calvinist out there that think of both these men as heretics and I say pity to those Calvinist for only thinking that Calvinist go to heaven. No matter what they say these are extreme Calvinist, regardless of how much they try and deny it.
In all fairness.....in his Epistle to the Romans, Barth does reference Kierkegaard several times (like Sproul references Barth). Maybe this is what Evan means.
Sent from my TARDIS
Learned what? They didn't agree on anything! One was a believer who rejected Theological Liberalism and the other denounced and attacked all of organized Christendom.
Sigh.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1966/04/28/everybodys-kierkegaard/
"The Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, is chiefly responsible for introducing Kierkegaard’s ideas into general discussion. In The Epistle to the Romans, published in 1918—the book that made his reputation and is often credited with having started the neo-orthodox movement in Protestantism—Barth quoted Kierkegaard generously; and for the following eight years he made no secret of his immense debt to him. Around 1927, however, Barth abruptly dropped Kierkegaard..."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1966/04/28/everybodys-kierkegaard/
"The Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, is chiefly responsible for introducing Kierkegaard’s ideas into general discussion. In The Epistle to the Romans, published in 1918—the book that made his reputation and is often credited with having started the neo-orthodox movement in Protestantism—Barth quoted Kierkegaard generously; and for the following eight years he made no secret of his immense debt to him. Around 1927, however, Barth abruptly dropped Kierkegaard..."
It is impossible that I was wrong (based on the fact that I was asking you a question). You need to read what I posted, Evan.
I asked if you believed Wesley had anything to contribute and you said “I agree.” That’s nonsense….here I was asking what you meant.
Then I asked between Piper, Sproul, or MacArthur….since they disagree on an important doctrine, which to ignore. You said none – SINCE THEY ARE CALVINISTS.
I’m asking you to clarify what you mean, brother.