Karl Barth

[JonC]

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...

I do not disagree that his view is in error regarding God's Word. But I also recognize that he brings out some points that are often ignored. That said, his understanding of Scripture may not sit well with your understanding it is not unorthodox in terms of what is "Christian."

And yes, Barth did concentrate much on the freedom of God and election as his choice to save man through Christ. Christ then becomes the center of this election. But if you notice, Barth does not conclude that all are saved through this election (he does not deny it as a possibility). So no, this is not universal salvation.

Often times the charge is levied against those who hold views outside of a certain theory as well. I, for example, believe that through Christ God was reconciling the world (to include all humanity) to himself. I believe that Christ bore the sin of humanity (not excluding certain people). This, if it were to remain in your theory, could result in nothing but universal salvation. Yet in reality I believe that Christ's death was designed to secure the salvation of only those who would believe (the elect). I offer this as illustration only, not to change the topic but to show how theories have to remain in a larger theology or be misunderstood entirely.

 

[TCassidy]

I do not disagree that his view is in error regarding God's Word.

I too disagreed with what I understood Barth to be saying that the bible only became the word of God when the Holy Spirit illuminated our hearts to receive it.

But the more I read what he wrote I have come to see the possibility that he was saying the unsaved man does not receive the bible as the word of God until he is regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit Who then illuminates his mind/heart to receive the bible as the word of God.

It is possible this is just Barth's take on 1 Corinthians 2:14 "Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

 

[JonC]

I too disagreed with what I understood Barth to be saying that the bible only became the word of God when the Holy Spirit illuminated our hearts to receive it.

But the more I read what he wrote I have come to see the possibility that he was saying the unsaved man does not receive the bible as the word of God until he is regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit Who then illuminates his mind/heart to receive the bible as the word of God.

It is possible this is just Barth's take on 1 Corinthians 2:14 "Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

I also get the idea (which I'm not really attributing to Barth specifically, but it is not an uncommon view) that the Bible is not the Word of God, but is something that leads to the Word of God (Christ). As such, Scripture points us to Christ as God's fullest revelation of Himself.

Think of it this way. Is the gospel itself the news that salvation has come or the salvation that has come? I can see it both ways.

 

[postman pat]

From all that I have read of him he was neo-orthodox. Yet some posters here like him as I am sure he had good things to say. My conclusion of Barth does not necessarily come from Macs view but from what I have read about him and he would not be a trusted source. What do you say of him?

I recently read a good book called From Calvin to Barth: A Return to Protestant Orthodoxy? It is well worth reading.