Thank you. I thought for a bit that I might be out here all alone. [emoji2]
Sent from my TARDIS
-
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
Sent from my TARDIS
Get your quotes from first hand sources not second hand. Besides people have a bias or have misunderstood Mac on the blood issue.
I agree with you (I was using MacArthur, as I indicated, as illustration). I guess I’m wondering why it is acceptable to denounce Karl Barth and Søren Kierkegaard based on second hand information, opinion, and interpretation but it is objectionable to do the same to John MacArthur. I wonder even more since MacArthur is at least here to defend his works while the other two are not.
We cannot deal with another’s theology without having engaged that theology from the authors perspective, words, and works (first hand information). On this thread you have denounced both Barth and Kierkegard by interacting with opinions others have formed of their ideas. And you are absolutely correct that this is not right as it equates to little more than gossip.
Even when we disagree with their theology it should be legitimate disagreement and not merely agreement with another’s opinion. I do not agree with Barth, Kierkegaard, or MacArthur on several issues. I think that if you were to read and understand Barth you would find both common ground and places of strong disagreement. And that would be fair discussion. But what we have here is not fair.
It was not a transient affair. It went on for 25 years.
Secondly, his doctrine was heretical.
Sin cann't be "justified" by a sinner. You mean he tried to "rationalize" his sin.
Huh? The same exact argument you say? That's ludicrous.You are comparing apples to artichokes. In no conceivable way can the two be "the exact same argument." Your analogies are as dissimilar as can be.
I have abslutely no idea what you are referencing. The only man named Pentecost that I know of was Dwight Pentecost who ied in 2014.
You're being absurd.
Nonsense. His stance on baptism does not constitute heresy. It was wrong and counter to Scripture --but it does not come to the level of damnable heresy.
From the basic description on Amazon and the back cover of "Gospel According to Jesus": "...He urges readers to understand that their conversion was more than a mere point in time, that, by definition, it includes a lifetime of obediently walking with Jesus as Lord."
The argument can be made that if conversion "requires" a lifetime of obediently walking with Jesus as Lord, that this is in clear opposition to Ephesians 2:10 (we are created unto good works; not because of them). Thus, the case was made by some that MacArthur is encouraging works-based salvation.
Sin is sin. I don't care how long it went on.
Yes, you are right. Poor wording on my part. I mean “justified in his own mind” but rationalized would be the objective (and correct) word.
Sin is sin. A pastor refusing to give up a desire or pleasure when it is even preached from his own pulpit as a sin is in no means being faithful to one’s calling. This was not a small matter with some of his time (as evidenced by Dr. Pentecost’s sermon). Spurgeon even rationalized it as “smoking to God’s glory.” Unless you are willing to category sin and explain which is appropriate to hold as unrepentant, then it is exactly the same issue but a different sin.
The Daily Telegraph, Sep. 23, 1874.
Yes, but only to highlight the absurdity of concluding sin un-repented is proof of an unsaved life.
Why not, as Calvin certainly considered the Baptist understanding of “believer’s baptism” as heresy? Is it not heresy to "counter Scripture"?
All of that to get to this:
There you go, brother. This is what I’m talking about. Discuss the doctrine and not the person.
When we talk about people we can only see flaw. Look at Tozer (I like Tozer’s works, but few would see his support of his family as anything but neglect). I mentioned Spurgeon (I also like Spurgeon’s works). I simply don’t care about the lives these men lived (except for idle curiosity or maybe illustration). I care about the doctrines they taught. And after so many swings you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Barth’s doctrine should be the topic (not from secondary sources but from Barth’s works). Whether right or wrong, or a mixture of both, we look at the theology of these men, not their personal lives. And that is where the true discussion begins.
I need to make a clarification (if it is not already clear). As far as I know, Rippon and I agree on many issues (most that we have discussed insofar as theology we hold). I am not fighting to defend Barth's theology. In fact, I am doing the exact opposite. I am suggesting that Barth's theology be allowed to stand on its own, to stand in areas it will stand and fall in areas it will fall.
I am sure that Rippon has arrived at the conclusions he holds through reading Barth’s works, and he takes exception to some doctrine that does not settle with his idea of orthodoxy. And that is a fair position for him to hold. I do not always agree with Barth. I think that quite a bit of his theology is reactionary to his circumstances and against liberal theology. That is natural, hence the importance of examining these things. Sometimes it is just as important to learn of the reasons behind doctrines in which we disagree.
What I object to is those who reject Barth, determine he is a heretic, and as proof offer someone else’s opinion. That is my objection here. Not that Barth was a sinner, he was. Not that he had questionable views, I believe he did. But those flaws and those dissenting opinions do not diminish the fact that his theology was extraordinarily influential within the Church as a whole. It does not diminish those areas where Karl Barth was right, where he brought to the forefront issues that were at hand. It would be foolish, at least for a student of theology, not to at least learn what the man taught.
I’m not saying that everyone should read Barth and make up their own minds. I am saying that people who denounce theologies on the basis of another’s opinion or interpretation are bearing false witness as they truly do not know what they say is true. They should refrain from offering an opinion (as the opinion they claim and offer is not their own).
I am sure that Rippon has arrived at the conclusions he holds through reading Barth’s works, and he takes exception to some doctrine that does not settle with his idea of orthodoxy. And that is a fair position for him to hold. I do not always agree with Barth. I think that quite a bit of his theology is reactionary to his circumstances and against liberal theology. That is natural, hence the importance of examining these things. Sometimes it is just as important to learn of the reasons behind doctrines in which we disagree.
What I object to is those who reject Barth, determine he is a heretic, and as proof offer someone else’s opinion. That is my objection here. Not that Barth was a sinner, he was. Not that he had questionable views, I believe he did. But those flaws and those dissenting opinions do not diminish the fact that his theology was extraordinarily influential within the Church as a whole. It does not diminish those areas where Karl Barth was right, where he brought to the forefront issues that were at hand. It would be foolish, at least for a student of theology, not to at least learn what the man taught.
I’m not saying that everyone should read Barth and make up their own minds. I am saying that people who denounce theologies on the basis of another’s opinion or interpretation are bearing false witness as they truly do not know what they say is true. They should refrain from offering an opinion (as the opinion they claim and offer is not their own).
And I, for one, believe MacArthur is right on that point. However I don't think MacArthur completely understands the point he has made and what it points toward. Unfortunately, MacArthur seems to believe salvation is all about the atonement and going to Heaven. That is a truncated viewpoint that leads to misunderstandings of certain scripture passages. How can a person who meets the God of the universe and enters into a discipline (learning) relationship with Jesus not be transformed?
That argument can be made if you assume that obediently walking with Jesus is all about earning salvation instead of being the natural result of true salvation. For some reason, we seem to thing that new birth is like flipping a switch. It is actually more like a human birth where there is an initial dangerous process where the child can live or die as it finds its way into life. In the same way, Jesus told the parable of the sower where some seeds landed on rocky ground and sprang up immediately, but then withered. Other seeds ended up choked out by thorns. That is a vivid illustration of the early stage of the new birth. Just as many came out of Egypt, walked through the waters, were guided and provided for by God and Moses - but they turned away from the Promised Land and the new life it offered a nation of priests before God (according to the covenant they made in Exodus 19) they are many who pass through the waters in our churches, experience the things of God but reject moving into a life of discipleship and dependence upon God. Think about it, that's what the warnings in Hebrews are about.
So yes, I think MacArthur is quite correct. He just doesn't know how correct he is and can't express it as well as he should.
walkinspirit
Member
I know just little about Karl Barth and I have not read his commentary of the Epistle of the Romans or Church Dogmatics, so my opinion here about him is dependent on others who have studied him.
His theology is Christocentric as apposed to the anthropocentric emphasis of modern liberalism of his day. I like the fact that Barth held to Christianity as a Revelation in a time when liberalism in Europe was very widespread. Hegel and Schleiermacher in Germany two of its leading philosophers divinized human thinking, Barth on the other hand emphasized the the revelation of God and the Word of God. He did not even use natural theology in his system, like Thomas Aquinas did in the past in discovering God through Nature or human reason.
One of the things that is debatable among scholars is whether or not Barth was a universalist, he seems to play with that idea in his teaching about the freedom of God, so there are some obscure statements about universalism in his work that has left some scholars puzzled and undecided about this matter. Did Barth believe in a possible ultimate universal salvation that was up to God's freedom to decide?
Another thing to consider is his doctrine of justification by faith, it seems like Barth is not interpreting it in the same light as the Reformers. Another Swiss theologian Jung actually wrote about the doctrine of justification according to Barth and that understanding of justification seems to be a middle way that is playing a role in modern ecumenism between Protestants and Catholics.
I like the idea that Barth separated theology from philosophy and that he emphasized kerygmatics and not apologetics. Jesus Christ is to be Proclaimed not defended. You don't need to defend a Lion you just need to let him lose, just an analogy. The Apostles Proclaimed the Gospel in the first century, it was only during the second century that apologetics were written from early Church Fathers to defend the faith.
I'm not aware of any personal affairs of Barth with his secretary, she lived with his family, if that is true I would like to know the source.
His theology is Christocentric as apposed to the anthropocentric emphasis of modern liberalism of his day. I like the fact that Barth held to Christianity as a Revelation in a time when liberalism in Europe was very widespread. Hegel and Schleiermacher in Germany two of its leading philosophers divinized human thinking, Barth on the other hand emphasized the the revelation of God and the Word of God. He did not even use natural theology in his system, like Thomas Aquinas did in the past in discovering God through Nature or human reason.
One of the things that is debatable among scholars is whether or not Barth was a universalist, he seems to play with that idea in his teaching about the freedom of God, so there are some obscure statements about universalism in his work that has left some scholars puzzled and undecided about this matter. Did Barth believe in a possible ultimate universal salvation that was up to God's freedom to decide?
Another thing to consider is his doctrine of justification by faith, it seems like Barth is not interpreting it in the same light as the Reformers. Another Swiss theologian Jung actually wrote about the doctrine of justification according to Barth and that understanding of justification seems to be a middle way that is playing a role in modern ecumenism between Protestants and Catholics.
I like the idea that Barth separated theology from philosophy and that he emphasized kerygmatics and not apologetics. Jesus Christ is to be Proclaimed not defended. You don't need to defend a Lion you just need to let him lose, just an analogy. The Apostles Proclaimed the Gospel in the first century, it was only during the second century that apologetics were written from early Church Fathers to defend the faith.
I'm not aware of any personal affairs of Barth with his secretary, she lived with his family, if that is true I would like to know the source.
Last edited:
I think that this is due to his understanding both of God's ultimate freedom and this as expressed in electon. Barth views election as Christ-centered (most Calvinists instead view election as God's absolute decree). God elected to become man in the person of Jesus, Jesus elected to take unto himself all of humanity (this is also seen in early church doctrine). But then Barth seems to hold that all men by virtue of Christ are elect. Those who do not believe have not recognized that election. He denies this is universal salvation (all may not be saved) but also rejects the possibility that God may save all men.
There is a sense where I would agree with Barth, but there is another where I wouldn't. I am by no means an expert on Barth, in fact many here could address this better than I and they are welcome to correct my misunderstanding of his theology. But it seems to me that a difficulty here is the idea that the Bible is the Word of God insofar as it communicates that Word. Like Søren Kierkegaard, Barth focuses less on God’s revelation through Scripture and more on the Spirit. To me, this places the gospel message in somewhat of a subjective light.
Where I would agree in a sense with Barth is that I also believe election to be Christ centered. I don’t think this excludes God’s election of men (individually) before the foundation of the earth, but I do think that it includes a sense of God electing all of humanity as well. There is a way, I suppose, that this is double predestination. Some are elected to be vessels of wrath and some vessels of mercy – but the crux of the election is Christ (not necessarily the decree). In other words, all of humanity is reconciled to God through Christ. This being so, we urge men to be reconciled to God (through Christ). On the threshing floor the wheat and chaff is separated, the wheat taken in and the chaff burned. But this is determined in and through Christ. Those who perish do not perish apart from Christ, but under His judgment (He knows them not).
So while I appreciate Barth’s theology (insofar as I understand it) on this issue, I disagree with his conclusions (there is no possibility, in my understanding, for universal salvation although I can grant that all of humanity could still be reconciled to God through Christ).
And I'm sure I misrepresented Barth....but it was not intentional. Frown
BTW, Jon, Lewis was excellent on pointing out the value of reading authors of different eras because what they took for granted because of the times in which they lived — the world view they either unconsciously adopted or were fighting against — becomes clear in hindsight while we are often blind to our own presuppositions.
While I do not wholeheartedly endorse that view, Lewis' refusal to adopt a rationalistic dichotomy between "fact" and "myth" paradoxically has from my standpoint reinforced orthodoxy. "Myth" as "hyperfact" is by no means a worthless concept in a rationalistic and materialist world. But I digress and have gone down a rabbit trail far from Barth ... my apologies. (But you can expect that when you put Chesterton in your signature line.)
I don't think that this rabbit trail is too far off the main path (considering the starting point was a John MacArthur assessment of Barth). In fact, the argument here against Barth would probably stand against Lewis as well (his view of Genesis, a “not quite” universalism approach, a not completely inerrant Bible….to name a few).
The problem is when we denounce the theologies of others based on trusted hearsay then we are never open to potential errors in our own understanding. And there are errors in our understanding (not all of our perceptions are right, and what are right may not be complete). The earlier we deny the legitimacy of opinions other than the ones we share the more potential for error we will hold. I think this is why some bad theologies exist (e.g., KJVO-ism), and why some others dogmatically and blindly hold on to their understanding. But that's another rabbit trail.
I changed my signature line just before I read your post. I'm tempted to change it back to....but it was time for a new one (the next one will probably be Chesterton). I changed it to Lewis for now
.
For me, I'll continue to read Barth, Lewis, and Kierkegaard. I don't think Lewis' view is worthless at all, and neither are many others that I do not fully accept.
The problem is when we denounce the theologies of others based on trusted hearsay then we are never open to potential errors in our own understanding. And there are errors in our understanding (not all of our perceptions are right, and what are right may not be complete). The earlier we deny the legitimacy of opinions other than the ones we share the more potential for error we will hold. I think this is why some bad theologies exist (e.g., KJVO-ism), and why some others dogmatically and blindly hold on to their understanding. But that's another rabbit trail.
I changed my signature line just before I read your post. I'm tempted to change it back to....but it was time for a new one (the next one will probably be Chesterton). I changed it to Lewis for now
. For me, I'll continue to read Barth, Lewis, and Kierkegaard. I don't think Lewis' view is worthless at all, and neither are many others that I do not fully accept.
I am all against hearsay and cherry-picking. Who of us, should it come to that, could absolutely defend every word we have spoken without wanting to provide some clarifications or emendations?
On Lewis, I think I can say I know firsthand all his questionable propositions, as well as his mighty defense of historic Christianity. He was, at heart, a middle-of-the-road Anglican who was trying to deal as best he could with the onslaught of modernism and, yes, heresy, that was attacking the church. He — as he might have pointed out from hindsight — may have pressed too far in some areas that he might have later regretted. Who knows? Yet he was an earnest defender of the faith when many of his fellow Anglicans were setting sail for terra incognita. His faults I forgive him; for his steadfast defense of Christianity I love him. At a time I was struggling with the fundamentalism I had grown up in, he was a breath of fresh air, a voice of reason, who told me that the great truths of Christianity need not be jettisoned in the wake of materialism and unreason and fashion. Without him I suppose I would be an agnostic or worse. (I owe a certain amount to her writing style, as well, but for that I, and not he, am to blame.)
I do think that Lewis gets some bad press on universalism; his primary focus, IIRC, was to point out some "universalist" passages in Paul — not necessarily to defend universalism (though he might hope for it), but to defend Paul from the attacks of modernists.
From his introduction to Letters to Young Churches (the J.B. Phillips translation):
"A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the Gospels) and that St Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the Epistles).
This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts come from the mouth of Our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St Paul. If it could be proved that St Paul altered the teaching of his Master in any way, he altered it in exactly the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed.
"But there is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St Paul’s. The Epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The Gospels came later. They are not ‘the gospel’, the statement of the Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted ‘the gospel’. They leave out many of the ‘complications’ (that is, the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the Epistles are more primitive and more central than the Gospels-though not, of course, than the great events which the Gospels recount. God’s act (the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis of it comes in the Epistles: then, when the generation who had known the Lord was dying out, the Gospels were composed to provide for believers a record of the great Act and of some of the Lord’s sayings. The ordinary popular conception has put everything upside down.
"Nor is the cause far to seek. In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage of which you do no yet attack the King in person. You say, ‘The King is all right. It is his Ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans—which, I’m sure, are good plans if only the Ministers would let them take effect.’ And the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers: only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself.
"In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St. Paul was really on a stage in the revolt against Christ. Men were not ready in large numbers to attack Christ Himself. They made the normal first move—that of attacking one of His principal ministers. Everything they disliked in Christianity was therefore attributed to St Paul. It is unfortunate that their case could not impress anyone who had really read the Gospels and the Epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the first victory was won. St Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step—the attack on the King Himself."
And I will note that I ran across an Anglican bishop in Australia who was lambasting Bishop Spong, who is, not to mince words, either an an apostate or heathen. The Australian was quoting B.F. Westcott, he of KJVO obloquy, for defending the very foundations of the Christian faith. I'm sure Westcott doesn't pass muster for modern Baptists, but he stood manfully for orthodoxy in his time, even if we can't approve every step he took.
BTW: I'm getting ready to start an online study of Augustine's Confessions.
On Lewis, I think I can say I know firsthand all his questionable propositions, as well as his mighty defense of historic Christianity. He was, at heart, a middle-of-the-road Anglican who was trying to deal as best he could with the onslaught of modernism and, yes, heresy, that was attacking the church. He — as he might have pointed out from hindsight — may have pressed too far in some areas that he might have later regretted. Who knows? Yet he was an earnest defender of the faith when many of his fellow Anglicans were setting sail for terra incognita. His faults I forgive him; for his steadfast defense of Christianity I love him. At a time I was struggling with the fundamentalism I had grown up in, he was a breath of fresh air, a voice of reason, who told me that the great truths of Christianity need not be jettisoned in the wake of materialism and unreason and fashion. Without him I suppose I would be an agnostic or worse. (I owe a certain amount to her writing style, as well, but for that I, and not he, am to blame.)
I do think that Lewis gets some bad press on universalism; his primary focus, IIRC, was to point out some "universalist" passages in Paul — not necessarily to defend universalism (though he might hope for it), but to defend Paul from the attacks of modernists.
From his introduction to Letters to Young Churches (the J.B. Phillips translation):
"A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the Gospels) and that St Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the Epistles).
This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts come from the mouth of Our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St Paul. If it could be proved that St Paul altered the teaching of his Master in any way, he altered it in exactly the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed.
"But there is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St Paul’s. The Epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The Gospels came later. They are not ‘the gospel’, the statement of the Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted ‘the gospel’. They leave out many of the ‘complications’ (that is, the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the Epistles are more primitive and more central than the Gospels-though not, of course, than the great events which the Gospels recount. God’s act (the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis of it comes in the Epistles: then, when the generation who had known the Lord was dying out, the Gospels were composed to provide for believers a record of the great Act and of some of the Lord’s sayings. The ordinary popular conception has put everything upside down.
"Nor is the cause far to seek. In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage of which you do no yet attack the King in person. You say, ‘The King is all right. It is his Ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans—which, I’m sure, are good plans if only the Ministers would let them take effect.’ And the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers: only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself.
"In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St. Paul was really on a stage in the revolt against Christ. Men were not ready in large numbers to attack Christ Himself. They made the normal first move—that of attacking one of His principal ministers. Everything they disliked in Christianity was therefore attributed to St Paul. It is unfortunate that their case could not impress anyone who had really read the Gospels and the Epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the first victory was won. St Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step—the attack on the King Himself."
And I will note that I ran across an Anglican bishop in Australia who was lambasting Bishop Spong, who is, not to mince words, either an an apostate or heathen. The Australian was quoting B.F. Westcott, he of KJVO obloquy, for defending the very foundations of the Christian faith. I'm sure Westcott doesn't pass muster for modern Baptists, but he stood manfully for orthodoxy in his time, even if we can't approve every step he took.
BTW: I'm getting ready to start an online study of Augustine's Confessions.
Last edited:
he erred in seeing scriptures do not become divinely inspired to us until the Spirit brings them alive to us, as before that happens, would be like any other book, and his views concerning all are elcted to salvation by God in the person of Christ smacks of Universalism!
Your description of his view of the Bible is not unique in any means to Barth. While I disagree with the position, it does carry the point that apart from the Spirit the Word of God is not communicated through Scripture (maybe not Barth's point....but it is mine). To many, the Bible is merely a book that the Spirit brings to life. In other words, some look to that personal revealing of God's Word as the Word of God. An atheist reading the bible as literature does not read God's Word whereas you, reading with the guidance and unveiling of the Holy Spirit, are reading the Word of God.
I'm not sure that it is fair to label Barth's theology as "Universalism,"....mostly because it is not. At it's root, I agree with Barth (as does many....including the early church). But as his theology develops I disagree at several places. If you want to understand why Barth's theology is normally not called "universalism" then read how his understanding of election (and the elect) differs from your own understanding.
The truth though os that in the Bible, God has given to us wriiten revelation JUST as truth and real as the revelation given to us in the person of Jesus, as both are of God and from God. So he was simple wrong to assert that it has no intrinsic revelation apart from when the Holy Spirit makes it "real and revelation" to us. The scriptures would still be the revelation of God to us in wriiyen form regardless if ANY ever came to belief that ot was!
And he did state that in the person and work of Jesus, God had freely chosen to elect all to be saved by Him, so if not Universalism, he was close enough to have some take his views to that extreme. he would seem to be indicating that all were saved wether they realized that fact or not, and only those who willfully rejected Jesus were lost...