Evangelical Theology Confusion

[timothyu]

There is no liberal/conservative, right/left in the Kingdom. Those are the foolishness of the will of man.

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

 

[dms1972]

There is no liberal/conservative, right/left in the Kingdom. Those are the foolishness of the will of man.

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Are you familiar with the writings of Dallas Willard? He takes issue with Gospels on the Right and on the Left, and tries to present Jesus message of the Kingdom.

 

[timothyu]

Are you familiar with the writings of Dallas Willard? He takes issue with Gospels on the Right and on the Left, and tries to present Jesus message of the Kingdom.

No I am not familiar as I get all my perspective from scripture. But thanks. Sounds like a smart dude with a perspective from the will of God rather than the will of man.. The Gospel of the Kingdom was the only thing Jesus taught and obviously it should have been enough.

 

[LightLoveHope]

T

Hi there, my name is Victoria, and I am currently in Bible college and one of my current classes is Christian Theology and I am really confused. I am reading a book called Evangelical Theology written by Karl Barth, and I am just overall confused, what is theology? What is the point to theology?

Theology currently does not make any sense to me, is there any way that someone would be able to explain theology to me in a way that would make sense to me and help me understand what is going on. I have to read a bunch of the book, and tomorrow I have a quiz on a different theology book from the same class. I just do not know what to do as theology is seeming to make no sense to me. Thanks!

Theology is the attempt to analytically define the language of a faith.

The confusion comes when different traditions and positions are proclaimed as the definitive truth rather than put into an interpretive context.

Some discover their assumptions about God, themselves and the world are not rigorous, and when looked at seem to disappear. Others find that seemingly opposite positions become reflections of the same truth but in different perspectives.

Faith and belief are often linked to trust, security and culture.
If one has a good foundation emotionally and a balanced view of life and its meaning, such deliberations can be enlightening and freeing. If one is insecure and easily moved, the whole experience can be destructive and one can literally get lost.

So the real question is where are you, and what is your foundation? If it is Christ and His love, nothing can shake you, because He is the rock upon which everything else is built.

 

[twin1954]

A physical kingdom for those of the spirit, regardless of what dimension it takes. But it also exists now in those who are of the will of God, having rejected the will of man.
The Kingdom (position of rule) of God is also God's governance, not man's governance.

How could Jesus' Kingdom be of this world at the time? It could not. One, this world was built upon the will and rule of man (not God) and has not yet been destroyed, and two the time of the end of days at the time of His crucifixion was not yet come.

Your post makes it sound as though God was helpless in controlling man.

 

[timothyu]

Your post makes it sound as though God was helpless in controlling man.

His intention was never to control man but to separate the grain from the tares by allowing man to serve themselves or God. Quite a simple formula to populate the Kingdom. If God had wanted an unthinking creation He could have made doorknobs the chosen entity.

 

[twin1954]

His intention was never to control man but to separate the grain from the tares by allowing man to serve themselves or God. Quite a simple formula to populate the Kingdom. If God had wanted an unthinking creation He could have made doorknobs the chosen entity.

You need to learn about the supremacy and sovereignty of God.

 

[mark kennedy]

Modernist theology strikes again. This why Christian kids go off to school and get sent back atheists.

This came out of Europe, there is no doubt in my mind. Europe has went down this strange path of rejecting traditional theism in favor of a more naturalistic worldview. You wouldn't believe how adamant they are, the bias against anything remotely theistic is relentless. I have seen it in secular settings, it's all over the media and now has taken hold in our seminaries. I worry that Christians have accepted a Trojan horse in the form of national socialism, whether it's fascism or communism makes little difference. The heart of the Protestant Reformation was a return to the testimony of Scripture, even the modern development of democracy as we understand it, grew up alongside this cultural and secular movement that turned the world upside down.

The best definition I've heard for 'evangelical' is an attempt to have your thoughts begin and end with Scripture. Always the seed of the word has been the target of the enemy, even our own earthly nature seeks to war against it. I don't despair, we will continue to be aliens and strangers in a world, seeking a city whose builder is God. Like thorns around the word we will face challenges to fix our faith on the one of whom all the prophets speak and the Apostles died proclaiming.

To be totally honest here, what do you expect from the world. Did you expect them to fall down and honor the clear testimony of Scripture when the world is trapped in bondage and decay? The narrow path that leads to life is reserved for the few who are determined to see the journey through to the end, to lay hold of what has laid hold of them. After generations the godly Israelites who entered Canaan, who established the United Kingdom of David and Solomon, Israel turned to idolatry. It took almost a thousand years before the dire predictions of the prophets came to pass, especially evident in the writings of the eighth century prophets. By the sixth century BC Israel and Judah had fallen, only to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple and the walls. They waited hundreds of years for the coming of the Messiah, in all that time following the return to the land, no Son of David sat on the throne in Jerusalem.

As Christians, especially evangelicals, we need to know our own history and doctrine. Your not going to get that from social media and you are not going to learn that in school. It's a personal journey and few are they that find it. I suspect, it was always that way.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[dms1972]

I have a couple of volumes of Barth's church Dogmatics, but have never read the book mentioned Evangelical Theology. It seems to be fairly short and a stand-alone read. I'd have thought Barth should have given his definition of what Theology is and what Evangelical means according to him in this book. If he hasn't it seems like a bit of an omission on his part.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is worth pointing out to the OP: that "Evangelical" in Barth's book does not mean "Evangelical" as in American usage.

Closer to being the opposite, actually.

Barth's use of the word is actually closer to its historic meaning. In Central Europe, Lutheran and Reformed churches are properly called Evangelical, that is the term Luther himself chose to describe his religious movement.

In the US, "evangelical" describes the political-religious movement of Neo-Fundamentalism started by Billy Graham.

 

[dms1972]

Barth's use of the word is actually closer to its historic meaning. In Central Europe, Lutheran and Reformed churches are properly called Evangelical, that is the term Luther himself chose to describe his religious movement.

In the US, "evangelical" describes the political-religious movement of Neo-Fundamentalism started by Billy Graham.

There are areas were his theology would differ significantly from both European and American evangelical theology (for instance his doctrine of election).

Barth started out as you probably are aware studying under some of the leading liberal theologians of the 19th century including Adolf von Harnack, Ernst Troeltsch, and Wilhelm Herrmann (though Herrmann did not consider himself a liberal)

"Herrmann owed much to Schleiermacher, above all, his understanding of faith as a determination of the spiritual life of the Christian that finds expression in doctrines or ideas rather than as a adherence to doctrines of themselves... Herrmann held fast to the conviction that man's coming to his true life depends upon the unique and decisive revelation of God in Jesus Christ. It is not difficult then to see why Barth in 1925 could say that he was not conscious of any 'conversion away from him' but only that he had had to say differently what he learned from him" James D Smart - Divided mind of Modern Theology.

Though Barth later broke with theological liberalism, he never embraced what is probably the key doctrine of american evangelicalism, Biblical inerrancy.

"The problem with which Barth was wrestling...was how to combine an evangelical faith with scientific theological investigation which would make use of the best equipment and the best knowledge available. He had no sympathy with some who solved the problem readily as they entered the pastorate by turning their backs on the academic world, throwing overboard the whole complex of modern theological issues and adapting themselves to their practical situation by conformity with whatever might happen to be the respectable religious standpoint." (Divided mind of modern theology)

"Into this recognised need of "more vital religion" to offset the barreness of Modernism there stepped a man. His name is Karl Barth. Karl Barth had an idea. In some ways it was the most stupendous idea that has ever come from the mind of man. It was a way to reconcile German Higher Criticism and this need of "more vital religion" in the barren Modernist churches....Karl Barth...stated that a thing can be false in history and yet religiously true. To Barth, history doesn't matter...To Barth, the Bible is not the word of God, it just contains the Word of God." Francis Schaeffer - Here We Stand

 

[FireDragon76]

There are areas were his theology would differ significantly from both European and American evangelical theology (for instance his doctrine of election).

Barth started out as you probably are aware studying under some of the leading liberal theologians of the 19th century including Adolf von Harnack, Ernst Troeltsch, and Wilhelm Herrmann (though Herrmann did not consider himself a liberal)

"Herrmann owed much to Schleiermacher, above all, his understanding of faith as a determination of the spiritual life of the Christian that finds expression in doctrines or ideas rather than as a adherence to doctrines of themselves... Herrmann held fast to the conviction that man's coming to his true life depends upon the unique and decisive revelation of God in Jesus Christ. It is not difficult then to see why Barth in 1925 could say that he was not conscious of any 'conversion away from him' but only that he had had to say differently what he learned from him" James D Smart - Divided mind of Modern Theology.

Though Barth later broke with theological liberalism, he never embraced what is probably the key doctrine of american evangelicalism, Biblical inerrancy.

"The problem with which Barth was wrestling...was how to combine an evangelical faith with scientific theological investigation which would make use if the best equipment and the best knowledge available. He had no sympathy with some who solved the problem readily as they entered the pastorate by turning their backs on the academic world, throwing overboard the whole complex of modern theological issues and adapting themselves to their practical situation by conformity with whatever might happen to be the respectable religious standpoint." (Divided mind of modern theology)

"Into this recognised need of "more vital religion" to offset the barreness of Modernism there stepped a man. His name is Karl Barth. Karl Barth had an idea. In some ways it was the most stupendous idea that has ever come from the mind of man. It was a way to reconcile German Higher Criticism and this need of "more vital religion" in the barren Modernist churches....Karl Barth...stated that a thing can be false in history and yet religiously true. To Barth, history doesn't matter...To Barth, the Bible is not the word of God, it just contains the Word of God." Francis Schaeffer - Here We Stand

Francis Schaeffer is a fundamentalist polemicist. One shouldn't expect him to give a fair analysis of Barth.

 

[Major1]

Theology is defined as religious philosophy. Philosophy is basically confusing the obvious then making a fresh opinion. Taking for instance what Jesus taught and making it into a new religion better suited to the philosophies of man limited to worldly thinking than to the otherworldy will of God.

Theology confuses. Scripture clarifies.

The outcome? The blind write books to lead the blind.

It has been said that "Philosophy" is a man trying to catch a black cat, in a room painted black, with the lights out.

The word “theology” comes from two Greek words that combined mean “the study of God.” Christian theology is simply an attempt to understand God as He is revealed in the Bible. No theology will ever fully explain God and His ways because God is infinitely and eternally higher than we are. Therefore, any attempt to describe Him will fall short

However, God does want us to know Him insofar as we are able, and theology is the art and science of knowing what we can know and understand about God in an organized and understandable manner.

 

[Major1]

Francis Schaeffer is a fundamentalist polemicist. One shouldn't expect him to give a fair analysis of Barth.

I for one can not agree with you.

Schaeffer’s apologetic was midway between evidentialism and presuppositional apologetics; he called his approach “taking the roof off.” His goal was to have people look at the logical conclusions of their belief systems. He also recognized the importance of speaking the language of non-Christians in order to engage with them and help them examine their own thoughts and beliefs. Rather than separate from culture, he believed Christians should understand the culture and genuinely love others through communicating the truth in a way that would be received.

Francis Schaeffer is also known for his political activism, particularly as related to his opposition to abortion. In line with his concept of the unity of truth, his teaching that our beliefs are to impact our lives, and his firm conviction of the dignity of all human life, he spoke out against abortion and co-authored Whatever Happened to the Human Race with pediatric surgeon C. Everett Koop, who later became Surgeon General .

 

[FireDragon76]

I for one can not agree with you.

Schaeffer’s apologetic was midway between evidentialism and presuppositional apologetics; he called his approach “taking the roof off.” His goal was to have people look at the logical conclusions of their belief systems. He also recognized the importance of speaking the language of non-Christians in order to engage with them and help them examine their own thoughts and beliefs. Rather than separate from culture, he believed Christians should understand the culture and genuinely love others through communicating the truth in a way that would be received.

Francis Schaeffer is also known for his political activism, particularly as related to his opposition to abortion. In line with his concept of the unity of truth, his teaching that our beliefs are to impact our lives, and his firm conviction of the dignity of all human life, he spoke out against abortion and co-authored Whatever Happened to the Human Race with pediatric surgeon C. Everett Koop, who later became Surgeon General .

He simply does not appreciate where Barth was coming from. Schaeffer seemed to believe in trying to convince modern people they were like stupid children. That is misguided at best, evil at worst. At least theologians like Barth and Bonhoeffer believed in taking modern people seriously on their own terms.

 

[Major1]

He simply does not appreciate where Barth was coming from. Schaeffer seemed to believe in trying to convince modern people they were like stupid children. That is misguided at best, evil at worst. At least theologians like Barth and Bonhoeffer believed in taking modern people seriously on their own terms.

That may very well be the case. However It is difficult to reconcile the utter strangeness of a man who lived in awe of a holy God while subjecting his wife and children to the indignity and inappropriateness of a live-in mistress, but this also was part of the mystery of Karl Barth. His research assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaur, was a fixture in both his professional life and in his home.

Do the work for yourself at.....What to Make of Karl Barth’s Steadfast Adultery

 

[dms1972]

He simply does not appreciate where Barth was coming from. Schaeffer seemed to believe in trying to convince modern people they were like stupid children. That is misguided at best, evil at worst. At least theologians like Barth and Bonhoeffer believed in taking modern people seriously on their own terms.

That doesn't comport at all with Schaeffer's insistence on honest answers to honest questions. And his repeated criticism of churches for telling people to "just believe", and for not addressing the genuine questions of moderns. Schaeffer went to considerible sacrifices opening his home for seekers to come in.

Even take what a student said to him:

"Once at a Cambridge University a postgraduate student said to me, in front of a group that had gathered in his room. "Mr. Schaeffer, I heard you speak last year. Since then I have been preparing a paper and I would like to read it to you. I dare read it to you because I think you understand. Sir, I am in horror great darkness."

No one else in fundamentalism was going into things and talking about Sartre, Camus, or modern art and philosophy at the time.

Take also his emphasis on love for people, and not just aiming to win arguments, something we all could learn from, myself included.

Did Barth really take modern people seriously on their own terms? He took the fortress of faith approach, the only thing you can do with unbelief is preach to it, he said.

 

[timothyu]

However, God does want us to know Him insofar as we are able, and theology is the art and science of knowing what we can know and understand about God in an organized and understandable manner.

In other words religious philosophy in the language of man?

 

[dms1972]

Francis Schaeffer is a fundamentalist polemicist. One shouldn't expect him to give a fair analysis of Barth.

I agree its still an open question for me if he was fair to Barth, and I think there are more detailed treatments such as the one I quoted by Smart.

 

[dms1972]

That may very well be the case. However It is difficult to reconcile the utter strangeness of a man who lived in awe of a holy God while subjecting his wife and children to the indignity and inappropriateness of a live-in mistress, but this also was part of the mystery of Karl Barth. His research assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaur, was a fixture in both his professional life and in his home.

Do the work for yourself at.....What to Make of Karl Barth’s Steadfast Adultery

It was a rather strange relationship, that placed strain on his marriage, but I don't believe there is ground for calling it an adulterous affair, if there is evidence he had a sexual relationship please link to it, because that article gives none.