Karl Barth

[TCassidy]

When looking at Barth's references to Kierkegaard's writings it is important to understand the context.

_____
The early Barth read at least three volumes of Kierkegaard' s works: Practice in
Christianity, The Moment and an Anthology from his journals and diaries. Almost all key terms from Kierkegaard which had an important role in Romans can be found in Practice Christianity. The concept of the indirect communication, the paradox, and the moment of Practice in Christianity in particular, confirmed and sharpened Barth' s ideas on contemporary Christianity and the Christian life. Barth does not fail to understand Kierkegaard's ideas; rather, he endorses and applies them in a wider context. Barth' s ambivalent attitude towards Kierkegaard can be more accurately recognized in this stance.
_____

Complete paper can be downloaded here: http://www.academia.edu/6894715/_Ki...urnal_of_Christian_Philosophy_18_2014_197-245

 

[JonC]

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..."

He referenced him 28 times in that commentary.

While I would not hold tightly (or even lightly) to Kierkegaard's theology I do find value in his writings. And although he is called the "father of existentialism" he has also stated belief that seems to question that title (for example, while he denied that one could be persuaded by men or doctrine to become a Christian, it was because he insisted that it is not theology that leads a person to God, but a Mediator that is Christ by the means of the Spirit (Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments). His condemnation against the religions structure (Christendom) was often if not mainly against his own state religion, he focused much on the conscience and subjective.

I don't agree completely with many who have contributed to my understanding in some way (to include Karl Barth, Søren Kierkegaard, N.T. Wright, John Piper, J.I. Packer, and even John MacArthur). But I wouldn't slander any of those guys (I wouldn't even slander Brian Mclaren). Read their words, evaluate their teaching, take what is good and leave the rest.

 

[JonC]

When looking at Barth's references to Kierkegaard's writings it is important to understand the context.

_____
The early Barth read at least three volumes of Kierkegaard' s works: Practice in
Christianity, The Moment and an Anthology from his journals and diaries. Almost all key terms from Kierkegaard which had an important role in Romans can be found in Practice Christianity. The concept of the indirect communication, the paradox, and the moment of Practice in Christianity in particular, confirmed and sharpened Barth' s ideas on contemporary Christianity and the Christian life. Barth does not fail to understand Kierkegaard's ideas; rather, he endorses and applies them in a wider context. Barth' s ambivalent attitude towards Kierkegaard can be more accurately recognized in this stance.
_____

Complete paper can be downloaded here: http://www.academia.edu/6894715/_Ki...urnal_of_Christian_Philosophy_18_2014_197-245

In Barth's Epistle to the Romans, it was often as supportive references (except when he called him too pious). Anyway, the article is informative. I don't have a link to it, but you may also find "Kierkegaard on the Christian Response to the God who Establishes Kinship with Us in Time" by Andrew Torrance (Modern Theology, Jan 2016) interesting. Just thought I'd post some of the quotes mentioned from Barth's commentary.

" 'The call to be an apostle is a paradoxical occurrence, lying always beyond his personal self-identity' (Kierkegaard)."

"Jesus as the Christ, as the Messiah, is the End of History; and He can be comprehended only as Paradox (Kierkegaard), as Victor (Blumhardt), as Primal History (Overbeck)."

"If Christ be very God, He must be unknown, for to be known directly is the characteristic mark of an idol' (Kierkegaard)."

"'Remove from the Christian Religion, as Christendom has done, its ability to shock, and Christianity, by becoming a direct communication, is altogether destroyed. It then becomes a tiny superficial thing, capable neither of inflicting deep wounds nor of healing them; by dicovering an unreal and merely human compassion, it forgets the qualitative distinction between man and God' (Kierkegaard)."

"It is precisely we who proclaim the right of the individual, the eternal worth of each single one (Kierkegaard!), by announcing that his soul is lost before God and, in Him, is dissolved – and saved."

"Faith is the predicate of which the new man is the subject. Projected into the midst of human life, the new man seems no more than a void, his 'passionate motions of eternity' (Kierkegaard) are invisible."

"We may, however, judge the relentlessness of Calvin, the dialectical audacity of Kierkegaard, Overbeck's sense of awe, Dostoevsky' s hunger for eternity, Blumhardt's optimism, too risky and too dangerous for us. We may therefore content ourselves with some lesser, more feeble possibility of religion."

"It would not be that 'Otherness' of God by which the whole realm of humanity is confronted and dissolved; it would be, rather, some second thing within the human sphere, another series of notions and illusions tossed up like foam from the rough and prosaic reality of this world. So utterly distinct from this world is it, that it can be displayed only where there is no otherness, it is a thing neither side by side with, nor preeminent over, other phenomena in this world. Contrasted with the reality of this world and with all its possible improvements, it is the wholly preeminent Truth, which must not be received as some peculiar intrusion of direct reality. – Such is the 'divine artifice ' (Kierkegaard)."

"We must therefore be on our guard against that 'fibrous, undialectical, blatant, clerical appeal that Christ was God, since He was so visibly and directly'! May we be preserved from the blasphemy of men who 'without being terrified and afraid in the presence of God, without the agony of death which is the birth – pang of faith, without the trembling which is the first requirement of adoration, without the panic of the possibility of scandal, hope to have direct knowledge of that which cannot be directly known… and do not rather say that He was truly and verily God, because He was beyond our comprehension ' (Kierkegaard)."

 

[preachinjesus]

This is what John MacArthur says about Barth. Is this accurate?

I don't think it is, one of the issues here is the boldest statement. Barth has high value for Scripture but doesn't express his theology therein through thr simplistic terms guys like Dr MacArthur demand. Because of the complexity of the theological project which Barth is assuming, there is a corresponding complexity to answering what appear to be easy questions. Frankly, I don't hold to many of the theological positions that Dr MacArthur assumes are needed for his version of orthodoxy: I'm not a young earther, not a dispensationalist, not a Calvinist, and not pre-tribulationalist. There is a helpful amount of distinctiveness in theology that provides room for charitable disagreement.

As for Barth, I think MacArthur has misread or only partially read him. Barth isn't an inerrantist and would consider such a term untenable. His theology is highly Christocentric, so much so that he is known as the theologian of "the Word." His doctrine of Scripture, then, results from his doctrine of Christ. Though Barth does state that an act in theology doesn't have to have a corresponding act in history, he does affirm core Christian doctrines like the resurrection and birth of Christ. You just won't find him as accommodating to present day evangelical theological vocabulary as others.

Also, I just don't understand the difficulty with Kirkegaard. Barth was inflicted by him, but positively. I too have been positively influenced by Kirkegaard.

 

[preachinjesus]

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..."

It might be helpful here to remember a bit from Barth's biography...

His Romans commentary had two specific editions. The first one, published in 1919, was more in line with the German Liberal school in which Barth arose. Yet the second edition, published after some time at Göttingen, reflects a massive shift in his theology.

 

[evangelist6589]

I don't think it is, one of the issues here is the boldest statement. Barth has high value for Scripture but doesn't express his theology therein through thr simplistic terms guys like Dr MacArthur demand. Because of the complexity of the theological project which Barth is assuming, there is a corresponding complexity to answering what appear to be easy questions. Frankly, I don't hold to many of the theological positions that Dr MacArthur assumes are needed for his version of orthodoxy: I'm not a young earther, not a dispensationalist, not a Calvinist, and not pre-tribulationalist. There is a helpful amount of distinctiveness in theology that provides room for charitable disagreement.

As for Barth, I think MacArthur has misread or only partially read him. Barth isn't an inerrantist and would consider such a term untenable. His theology is highly Christocentric, so much so that he is known as the theologian of "the Word." His doctrine of Scripture, then, results from his doctrine of Christ. Though Barth does state that an act in theology doesn't have to have a corresponding act in history, he does affirm core Christian doctrines like the resurrection and birth of Christ. You just won't find him as accommodating to present day evangelical theological vocabulary as others.

Also, I just don't understand the difficulty with Kirkegaard. Barth was inflicted by him, but positively. I too have been positively influenced by Kirkegaard.

Influenced by Kierkegaard? How so?

 

[JonC]

Influenced by Kierkegaard? How so?

I think that a fair answer, Evan, (other than what has already been given) is that a good theologian interacts with the theologies of others (Kierkegaard is not the only scholar Barth sources). A good theologian realizes those who have gone before, those who are present, and those to come....as well as himself....as flawed men. So this type of theologian will take what is useful, what the scholar has gleaned that is true, and dismiss what is error (without ridiculing the other for his human flaws). A bad theologian will consider only what supports his own theology and cling to those who agree with his own understanding. A bad theologian will always remain in error because he will be careful not to expose himself to the understandings of other Christians. Karl Barth was a good theologian.

What writings of Karl Barth do you find so objectionable? What works of Søren Kierkegaard do you find so offensive or objectionable?

 

[Don]

What writings of Karl Barth do you find so objectionable? What works of Søren Kierkegaard do you find so offensive or objectionable?

Now you're getting deep....

 

[Baptist Believer]

What writings of Karl Barth do you find so objectionable? What works of Søren Kierkegaard do you find so offensive or objectionable?

You just killed the thread. The real and unstated topic of this thread was the authority and accuracy of John MacArthur as a theological guide.

 

[JonC]

Now you're getting deep....

Nah….I never swim out of the shallow end for fear of drowning .

I am not, BTW, saying that I agree with Karl Barth or Søren Kierkegaard insofar as I’ve adopted their theologies. Both of these men developed and held theologies that were in many ways responses to the worldview and circumstances in which they found themselves. But so is ours.

Our theology did not develop in a holy vacuum. I can imagine people in other areas of the world, perhaps in a not so distant future, discussing the westernization of theological understanding and wondering how we came to some of our conclusions - or better yet, identifying those influencers that we, being in the mix, cannot see.

What I am suggesting is that these men held, alongside theological error, valuable insights and truths from which we can learn. In other words, they were not so different from us. I appreciate the Christ-centeredness of Barth, but I question his less than dogmatic approach to Scripture as revelation. I appreciate Kierkegaard’s insistence that it is not through the church or the gospel message that men are saved, but through Christ and the work of the Spirit, but I question the subjectivity and philosophical reasoning that is inherent in his work. I understand Barth’s theology as a reaction to the liberal theology of his time. I understand much of Kierkegaard’s theology to be a reaction to that state-Church to which he was so opposed. What I don’t understand is why so many people cannot see that they are not so different from us.

 

[Rippon]

What I find so objectionable is that Christians go to this unregenerate man for theological insight.

He was an adulterer. He had a mistress in his home with his wife and children. He had asked for a divorce. His wife refused. Then his mistress moved in. She became his full-time assistant. Shameful.

 

[JonC]

What I find so objectionable is that Christians go to this unregenerate man for theological insight.

He was an adulterer. He had a mistress in his home with his wife and children. He had asked for a divorce. His wife refused. Then his mistress moved in. She became his full-time assistant. Shameful.

No one goes to the man for insight. The guy is dead. [emoji14] But if sin means one is lost, then you have a point. The man certainly was not without sin. (It's ironic that there's a thread asking if Samson was saved).

I deal with the doctrine, not the people. I don't know if he was regenerate or not - we only judge according to the fruit we see (Matt. 7 makes this clear enough).

I'll give you guys another confession. I even like C.S. Lewis despite his view of "sacred mythology.".

 

[evangelist6589]

I think that a fair answer, Evan, (other than what has already been given) is that a good theologian interacts with the theologies of others (Kierkegaard is not the only scholar Barth sources). A good theologian realizes those who have gone before, those who are present, and those to come....as well as himself....as flawed men. So this type of theologian will take what is useful, what the scholar has gleaned that is true, and dismiss what is error (without ridiculing the other for his human flaws). A bad theologian will consider only what supports his own theology and cling to those who agree with his own understanding. A bad theologian will always remain in error because he will be careful not to expose himself to the understandings of other Christians. Karl Barth was a good theologian.

What writings of Karl Barth do you find so objectionable? What works of Søren Kierkegaard do you find so offensive or objectionable?

Because he was the father of existentialism. I was reading some of his quotes in a book and disagreeing with all of it. I can't recall all the details for you since I do not have this book in front of me. But I will state he is bad news.

 

[evangelist6589]

You just killed the thread. The real and unstated topic of this thread was the authority and accuracy of John MacArthur as a theological guide.

What???? There is something that I would love to say at this time but cannot.

 

[JonC]

Because he was the father of existentialism. I was reading some of his quotes in a book and disagreeing with all of it. I can't recall all the details for you since I do not have this book in front of me. But I will state he is bad news.

It doesn’t bother me, Evan, whether you read Barth or not. It really does not bother me if you disagree with either of those scholars without ever actually reading what they have to say. I think that it is a fair trade off as you now have no grounds to argue against those who would denounce your views (or an author you may present) on the assessment of others.

I truly hope, however, that you will take something from this thread. Consider this illustration:

Several authors have shown how John MacArthur has added something to faith to make salvation to be faith plus works. Zane Hodges noted the false gospel, but Michael Horton actually met with MacArthur’s staff and was assured that newer publications of “The Gospel According to Jesus” and “Faith Works” would exclude that heresy (see Horton, Christ the Lord, 2009). So not only was this false doctrine taught by MacArthur (I like Michael Horton, so he must be right in his assessment) but we have other problems as well. As John Piper (I also like John Piper) noted, MacArthur teaches an unbiblical understanding of how God works in the lives of believers (Piper Addresses Strange Fire, Nov. 16, 2013). Add to this the fact that John MacArthur wrote that “it was not the blood of Jesus that saves” (Grace to You family publication, May 1976).

So here are three sources, Michael Horton, John Piper, and John MacArthur himself that demonstrate MacArthur teaches another gospel, a works based salvation, denies God’s work in the Church, and denies that we are saved by the blood of Christ. John MacArthur is bad news, brother.

Again, this is just an illustration of how ignorance breeds ignorance. I agree with MacArthur on all three of those issues mentioned, but I really do consider Michael Horton and John Piper trusted sources. The difference is that I have read MacArthur and come to my own conclusions. Even thought I trust Horton and Piper, I don't always agree with their conclusions (actually, Horton did have a good point....which is why, I suppose, MacArthur's staff agreed to change a few comments in future publications).

Let's look at a few of Barth's contributions and see what is good and what is bad (that's the topic here, isn't it?). Where do we agree? Where do we disagree? What did he have right....or what did he bring out that may not be at the forefront of our doctrine? What did he get wrong and where did he go off track? That's what I am saying we look at. I would never recommend merely reading any of those works and simply taking them as truth. I wouldn't recommend that for MacArthur, Sproul, Gill, Wesley....any of those works.

 

[Rippon]

No one goes to the man for insight. The guy is dead.

You make no sense Jon. So what if he's dead? People still look to him for theological insight.
I get theological insight (Bible knowledge) from a host of dead people : John Owen, B.B. Warfield, Spurgeon, A.W.Pink and DMLJ to name a few.

But if sin means one is lost, then you have a point. The man certainly was not without sin.

Barth was an unsaved man. He lived with his mistress for 25 years. He was unrepentant.

I deal with the doctrine, not the people.

So it means nothing to you if a theologian or pastor has a continuing affair for a quarter century?
Why dwell in a sewer looking for gems of insight, when there are resources available from regenerate men of mature godliness as well as keen scholarship?

 

[JonC]

You make no sense Jon. So what if he's dead? People still look to him for theological insight.
I get theological insight (Bible knowledge) from a host of dead people : John Owen, B.B. Warfield, Spurgeon, A.W.Pink and DMLJ to name a few.

Barth was an unsaved man. He lived with his mistress for 25 years. He was unrepentant.

So it means nothing to you if a theologian or pastor has a continuing affair for a quarter century?
Why dwell in a swer looking for gems of insight, when there are resources available from regenerate men of mature godliness as well as keen scholarship?

I meant that a bit tongue in cheek, brother Rippon. I know that we look to the works of a host of scholars as tools and insights into Scripture. My comment was merely to highlight that we do not use those men themselves, and in truth we use (or should use) those resources divorced from the authors (we do not in truth know the personal life of Spurgeon, Pink, etc. apart from what they, or others, have revealed to us).

You say that Barth was an unsaved man because of that affair with Kirschbaum. Although I am sure that Barth probably justified his actions (maybe by the fact that he had tried to divorce his wife but she refused to grant the divorce, perhaps by the fact that in other times/places he would have been divorced, probably through his understanding of Scripture itself, etc.), you are right that adultery was a sin. Not only did Barth invite the woman to live with him, but all of this was very public.

So I understand why you would conclude that it means nothing to me if a theologian or pastor has an affair. In answer I will explain that this is what I’ve been trying to address across three threads.

1. I do not know that Barth was unsaved because he had an affair. While there are, of course, many fruits one could point to as “fruit of the spirit” in the life of Karl Barth, this affair is not one of them. Sin indicates a state of unrepentance in an area of his life and should be dealt with by the church. This is why we have church discipline (it’s why we are commanded to discipline).

I have seen the exact same argument against Spurgeon (not the affair, but his willful habit and defense of smoking cigars). In spite of those brothers who considered the habit a sin (and Pentecost’s public chiding of Spurgeon from Spurgeon’s own pulpit in 1874) the man insisted that, regardless of the conscious of others, he did not sin when he smoked but did so “to the glory of God.” How could, knowing that some objected to the habit, Spurgeon put his love of cigars above the church? How could this really be to God’s glory if it was so offensive to other brethren? Spurgeon put the satisfaction of his fleshly desires over his brethren, which is a sin. He never repented of this sin, therefore he must not have been saved.

Yes, I can identify unrepentant sin. No, I cannot know if God was working in that person’s life or to what extent this may have been. I neither know nor care if Karl Barth was saved. If he was saved then he will be in glory, if not then he is beyond redemption as he has passed.

2. Does one’s spiritual state nullify the legitimacy (or possible value) of doctrine? As I stated, we cannot truly know the spiritual state of another. In Matthew 7 we learn that many whom were used by God, many who participated in the ministry of the Kingdom in some tangible form, will hear those words “I never knew you.” Does this nullify works done, teachings taught, people healed? No, it was never about those people it was all about God.

3. Thirdly, no one is “dwelling in a sewer looking for insights” when they read Barth and evaluate his words with Scripture. John Calvin taught heresy, but I have gleaned through his Institutes truths that have benefited me in my own walk. I dismissed what was unbiblical and took what was faithful.

4. I know people have come to Christ through the work of Jimmy Swaggart. I wonder how many believe that they need to be re-baptized. If it is true that Swaggart’s affair nullifies anything that he said at that time, then perhaps God (being dependent on the spiritual state of men) failed to actually save those who “came to Christ” through Swaggart’s ministry.

So, do I think that Karl Barth qualifies as a pastor? No, I believe that he has disqualified himself on two fronts. First, his conduct excludes him from that position. Second, he is dead. Do I think that he was unsaved? I have no opinion about his salvation. If he were living today and I had opportunity then I would call him to repent. If he were in my church I would bring this to discipline. Both he and Spurgeon should have been subjected to correction (and both were called to repent, although they both ignored the call).

But what’s that got to do with the price of tea in China you ask? Nothing…absolutely nothing. Unless we choose to idolize men, we should deal with the doctrine of those men. Were Karl Barth not to have had an affair, I would remain unable to confirm his regenerative state as well.

 

[preachinjesus]

JonC is doing a good job saying, basically, what I would be, so I'm happy to let him continue. No need to replicate. Well done.

 

[evangelist6589]

It doesn’t bother me, Evan, whether you read Barth or not. It really does not bother me if you disagree with either of those scholars without ever actually reading what they have to say. I think that it is a fair trade off as you now have no grounds to argue against those who would denounce your views (or an author you may present) on the assessment of others.

I truly hope, however, that you will take something from this thread. Consider this illustration:

Several authors have shown how John MacArthur has added something to faith to make salvation to be faith plus works. Zane Hodges noted the false gospel, but Michael Horton actually met with MacArthur’s staff and was assured that newer publications of “The Gospel According to Jesus” and “Faith Works” would exclude that heresy (see Horton, Christ the Lord, 2009). So not only was this false doctrine taught by MacArthur (I like Michael Horton, so he must be right in his assessment) but we have other problems as well. As John Piper (I also like John Piper) noted, MacArthur teaches an unbiblical understanding of how God works in the lives of believers (Piper Addresses Strange Fire, Nov. 16, 2013). Add to this the fact that John MacArthur wrote that “it was not the blood of Jesus that saves” (Grace to You family publication, May 1976).

So here are three sources, Michael Horton, John Piper, and John MacArthur himself that demonstrate MacArthur teaches another gospel, a works based salvation, denies God’s work in the Church, and denies that we are saved by the blood of Christ. John MacArthur is bad news, brother.

Again, this is just an illustration of how ignorance breeds ignorance. I agree with MacArthur on all three of those issues mentioned, but I really do consider Michael Horton and John Piper trusted sources. The difference is that I have read MacArthur and come to my own conclusions. Even thought I trust Horton and Piper, I don't always agree with their conclusions (actually, Horton did have a good point....which is why, I suppose, MacArthur's staff agreed to change a few comments in future publications).

Let's look at a few of Barth's contributions and see what is good and what is bad (that's the topic here, isn't it?). Where do we agree? Where do we disagree? What did he have right....or what did he bring out that may not be at the forefront of our doctrine? What did he get wrong and where did he go off track? That's what I am saying we look at. I would never recommend merely reading any of those works and simply taking them as truth. I wouldn't recommend that for MacArthur, Sproul, Gill, Wesley....any of those works.

Show me quotes in the Gospel According to Jesus (I have the 2nd edition) that is heretical and works based salvation. Show me quotes in Faith Works as well. Maybe I missed something.

 

[JonC]

Show me quotes in the Gospel According to Jesus (I have the 2nd edition) that is heretical and works based salvation. Show me quotes in Faith Works as well. Maybe I missed something.

I may have read that book before, I honestly can't remember. But I trust the scholars I mentioned, and that quote was from a theological site. It was what MacArthur stated. When Horton and Piper dispute him....and given that quote....well....he's bad news.....right?

I mean, you do believe we are saved through the blood of Christ through which He purchased us....right?

Sent from my TARDIS