how influential is Karl Barth in the Reformed Church?

FireDragon76 said:

I personally do not accept most of the so-called 5-points of Calvinism, but my understanding is that Karl Barth developed a systematic theology that bypassed a lot of those questions. I've only read a little bit about his doctrine of election but my understanding is that his theology has a lot of widespread ecumenical interest at the acamedic level, but has not been fully assimilated in mainline Protestant churches, many of which are still heavily influenced by 19th century liberalism.

Click to expand...

Never read Barth but know a few that have. He's a very controversial figure. I would say the fellas that I know who embrace his teaching tend to lean heavily toward liberalism and are not confessionally Reformed.

Anyone...

Not that influential, mostly because of Cornelius Van Til's influence on American Reformed Christianity.

Van Til was extremely anti-Barth.

The OP was presumably directed at the PCUSA, since the PCA, etc, obviously wouldn’t embrace Barth.

Barth has certainly been influential. There are Barthians at Princeton and elsewhere. But not more so than others. I’ve heard him quoted the most on the doctrine of Scripture. I agree with one of the posting above that classical liberal thinkers such as Schliermacher and Ritschl have also had an impact, and I think particularly Rauschenbusch. However much of the influence of the 19th Cent theology is via more recent theologians who have been influenced by them but are involved in current theological discussions. One of Barth’s most serious problems was his unjust treatment of the liberal theological tradition. I think that’s begun to be recognized, even by those who otherwise admire Barth.

But my impression is that currently NT scholars such as Wright and Borg are more influential than these writers. The OP mentions election. I’d suggest that current understandings of Paul are probably the most influential in how we understand election.

Not that influential, mostly because of Cornelius Van Til's influence on American Reformed Christianity.

Van Til was extremely anti-Barth.

Click to expand...

I wonder is that why Francis Schaeffer was also so critical of Barth, did he pick this up from Van Til?

Francis Schaeffer and few other Fundamentalist theologians (though not Van Til as far as I know) met Barth. They had a friendly discussion, and asked questions to make sure they understood what he was saying in his books. But after that communications broke down badly, and Barth was deeply upset with Schaeffer and others presentation of him and his theology as heading in a trajectory away from Historic Christianity. Basically they were saying Barth was further away from Historic Christianity than the older liberals. Schaeffers criticism centred on Barth's method.

Doing a search on the Internet this book table of contents seems to cover a lot of what the OP is asking.

Evangelicalism and Karl Barth: His Reception and Influence in North American Evangelical theology.

Van Til on the matter:

"No judgment about Barth’s own faith is implied in this. It is only to say that what appears in his writings, his latest and most mature writings, is calculated to lead men to think that they are not sinners, that they are not subject to the wrath of God, that their sins need not be washed away through the blood of the Son of God and Son of Man, Jesus of Nazareth, who was born of the virgin Mary, died and rose again with the same body with which he was laid in the tomb. For men to depend upon the Jesus Christ of Barth is to depend upon themselves as inherently righteous. Shall not preachers of the gospel call men away from this other gospel which is not the gospel? Is the church now any less responsible for setting off the truth against error than it was at Nicaea, at Chalcedon, not to speak of Dort or the assembly of the Westminster divines? No heresy that appeared at any of these was so deeply and ultimately destructive of the gospel as is the theology of Barth. Never in the history of the church has the triune God been so completely and inextricably intertwined with his own creature as he has been in modern dialectical thought."

Src: Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?, Cornelius Van Til, WTJ 16:2, May 1954

I'd like to understand this better as I am interested in Barth. Particularly his understanding of the Word and how a person comes to faith. But I'd like to be sure he is right.

I find some of what Van Til says here puzzling, not that I know a lot about Barth, but Barth was influenced by Kierrkegarrd and one of Kierrkegarrds emphasis was what he term the infinite qualitative difference between God and his creation. Also (from what I have read) Barth put even greater emphasis on God's Transcendence than Calvin. In that respect he has been criticised for making God too distant. So I can't understand the last sentence of the quote from Van Til if he is refering to Barth.

If when reading one is always worried about heresy it hard to give someone a fair reading.

Not as influential as He should be.

dms1972 said:

I'd like to understand this better as I am interested in Barth. Particularly his understanding of the Word and how a person comes to faith. But I'd like to be sure he is right.

I find some of what Van Til says here puzzling, not that I know a lot about Barth, but Barth was influenced by Kierrkegarrd and one of Kierrkegarrds emphasis was what he term the infinite qualitative difference between God and his creation. Also (from what I have read) Barth put even greater emphasis on God's Transcendence than Calvin. In that respect he has been criticised for making God too distant. So I can't understand the last sentence of the quote from Van Til if he is refering to Barth.

If when reading one is always worried about heresy it hard to give someone a fair reading.

Click to expand...

All of Barth's CD was required reading in my seminary days back in the seventies (sigh). I am not implying one should not read Torrance (Barth's student) and Barth for mining some gold here and there, but one must disavow their views that would break the ontological gap between the divine and the human natures. Before tackling CD, I do recommend a primer here.

Contrary to modern attempts to rehabilitate the man, I believe Van Til has accurately captured Barth's thoughts. You can read the full article from which I quoted from in the attached to form your own conclusions.

Thanks for the links. I don't think I will be getting into Barth in any depth any time soon. I have some of Donald Bloesch's books and though he is fairly Barthian he's not uncritical.

Going back to the OPs question, he would be an example of a Reformed Theologian who has been influenced by Barth.

dms1972 said:

Thanks for the links. I don't think I will be getting into Barth in any depth any time soon. I have some of Donald Bloesch's books and though he is fairly Barthian he's not uncriticical.

Going back to the OPs question, he would be an example of a Reformed Theologian who has been influenced by Barth.

Click to expand...

You wrote: "So I can't understand the last sentence of the quote from Van Til if he is referring to Barth."

Yes, Barth was the object of that last sentence given Barth's modern dialectical approach. The journal article I attached earlier explains in detail.

Im an little rusty on dialectics. I have read a few pages of the Van Til article - its quite deep, and I don't quite understand it all. Bloesch says that Barth veered away from philosophical dialectics to a theological dialectic. I'd need to read what Barth said on that to see if I can understand him.

When I read Francis Scheffer I thought that dialectic was a way of thinking that started with Hegel, but there are different sorts dialectics, and classical dialectics have been around from the time of Socrates, so I don't quite know what Schaeffer meant. Certainly Hegel seems to have come up with a new sort of dialectic. Barth was critical of what he seen as the divinisation of thought in Hegel and Schliermacher, and of course Kierkegarrd was firmly opposed to Hegelianism.

I still think Barth may have raised valid points. What is wrong with him saying Scripture in itself is not revelation, but a witness to God's revelation in Jesus Christ. I don't know he may be wrong.

I don't know when Barth is said to be saying that the Incarnation didn't take place in ordinary time, quite what he is meaning. Is he meaning what Kierkkegarrd said - Eternity stepped into time. The Bible speaks of The fullness of Time in regard to the Birth of Jesus. Again I am not sure I understand that.

The fundamentalist view of revelation is that its something given and codified, its the codified aspect Barth disagreed with.

To quote a bit of Donald Bloesch (he has a whole chapter on the meaning of revelation in Christian Foundations - Holy Scripture)

"The Bible is both the revelation and the means and bearer of revelation. It is revelation cast in written form and the original witness to revelation. It is a component of revelation and a vechicle of revelation. It objectively contains revelation in the sense that its witness is based on revelation, but it becomes revelation for us only in the moment of decision, in the awakening to faith. Scripture is not simply a pointer to revelation (as Torrance sometimes describes it) but a carrier of revelation. Scripture is the mediate source of revelation, but only Jesus Christ is the original or eternal source."

"Against later orthodoxy and fundamentalism, I hold that the words of the Bible are revelatory but not revealed; they conform to the revelation and convey the revelation through the Spirit. The propositions in the Bible are the result of revelation, the concrete embodiment of revelation and the vechicle of revelation."

At times Bloesch seems to be saying he disagrees with something then in what he says following he seems to in fact be agreeing. I think he is dissociating himself from very narrow or incomplete understandings first then presenting a fuller understanding that includes the incomplete understanding.

Out of interest and in case I haven't even understood the cover of the book what is a Testament in a biblical sense, ie New Testament. I took it to mean testimonies, ie people giving information, reporting, telling about events they have witnessed, telling us things Jesus said.

dms1972 said:

Im an little rusty on dialectics. I have read a few pages of the Van Til article - its quite deep, and I don't quite understand it all...

...I still think Barth may have raised valid points.

Click to expand...

Better to dig deeper before then claiming there is validity in what Barth has had to say on the essentials of the faith. It seems you are predisposed to give Barth a pass with less than the full facts understood.

Van Til is requiring me to give Barth a total fail before reading him for myself.

dms1972 said:

Im not prepared to give him a pass. But one cannot read fairly looking for, or assuming heresy is my view. I have read some of his writting. Would like to be able to evaluate it fairly. Just don't like the sweeping polemic Van Til gives denouncing Barth's theology as the worst heresy to hit the church.

Click to expand...

I will stop now. You entered the discussion with some questions. I answered them. You then proceed to express difficulty in understanding the content offered up as it is complex. Yet, having not devoted yourself to a thorough study of the content and its implications you offer up a sweeping polemic about something you have superficially reviewed.

I apologise if my comments were also polemical, Van Til and some types of fundamentalism has that effect on me, I want to respond with "hang on mate - is that not a bit strong!" In any case thanks for the article / recommendations.

I agree however there are some very unusual notions compared with tradional theology in Barth's writing and a lot of it seems to be going into things far more deeply than I feel I need to at this time.

I think if you’re committed to the conservative Reformed tradition, you’r going to find it hard to consider Barth as a whole very useful. For Protestants, Scripture is basic. His doctrine of Scripture is basically the mainline doctrine that Scripture is a witness to revelation, but isn’t itself the revelation. That contradicts the traditional position, and various implications follow from that.

Of course if you’re interested in mainline Reformed churches such as the PCUSA, Barth’s doctrine of Scripture is often referred to as a source for ours.

dms1972 said:

I apologise if my comments were also polemical, Van Til and some types of fundamentalism has that effect on me,

Click to expand...

Van Til should not be mentioned in the same sentence as fundamentalism. For more, see:
http://www.vantil.info/bycategory.html