As is probably known Karl Barth has had his critics (mainly within Fundamentalism)
Yet on the face of it there seem to be many passages in his writings that taken in a plain sense seem to accord with reformed and fundamentalist theology. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from the beginning of his volume The Doctrine of God, to see if on the face of it this agrees with what a fundamentalist would hold to. I know why for instance Van Til has an issue with Barth's theology, but I want to see if one can read Barth words at face value and not be lead into error? After all not everyone picking up Barth, knows anything about him.
Here is how he opens his Doctrine of God.
Man before God
"In the Church of Jesus Christ men speak about God and men have to hear about God. About God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; about God's grace and truth; about God's thoughts and works; about God's promises, ordinances and commandments; about God's kingdom, and about the state and life of man in the sphere of His lordship. But always and in all circumstances about God Himself, who is the presupposition, meaning and power of everything that is to be said and heard in the Church, the Subject who absolutely, originally and finally moves, produces, establishes and realises in this matter. In dogmatics it is the doctrine of God which deals with this Subject as such. In the doctrine of God we have to learn what we are saying when we say "God". In the the doctrine of God we have to learn to say "God" in the correct sense. If we do not speak rightly of this Subject, how can we speak rightly of His predicates?
But in relation to this Subject, we are at once contronted with the problem of knowledge. All speaking and hearing in the Church of Jesus Christ entirely rests upon and is concerned with the fact that God is known in the Church of Jesus; that is to say, that this Subject is objectively present to the speakers and hearers, so that man in the Church really stands before God. If it were not so, if man did not really stand before God, if God were not the object of his perception, viewing and conception, and if he did not know God - whatever we understand by "know" - then he could not speak and hear about Him. Then everything declared and heard in the Church would have no Subject and it would be left in the air like an empty sound. Then the church, if it lives only by what is said and heard in it, would not be alive; or its life would be merely an apparent life, life in a dream-world with those subjectless images and concepts as phantasies of its imagination. But if the life of the Church is not just a semblance, the knowledge of God is realised in it. This is the presupposition which we have first of all to explain in the doctrine of God. We have to learn how far we can know God and therefore speak and hear about him."
I know these two opening paragraphs have not taken us into the nitty gritty of Barth's theology, but on the face of it does Barth say anything here at least that would be objectionable to most fundamentalists?
Yet on the face of it there seem to be many passages in his writings that taken in a plain sense seem to accord with reformed and fundamentalist theology. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from the beginning of his volume The Doctrine of God, to see if on the face of it this agrees with what a fundamentalist would hold to. I know why for instance Van Til has an issue with Barth's theology, but I want to see if one can read Barth words at face value and not be lead into error? After all not everyone picking up Barth, knows anything about him.
Here is how he opens his Doctrine of God.
Man before God
"In the Church of Jesus Christ men speak about God and men have to hear about God. About God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; about God's grace and truth; about God's thoughts and works; about God's promises, ordinances and commandments; about God's kingdom, and about the state and life of man in the sphere of His lordship. But always and in all circumstances about God Himself, who is the presupposition, meaning and power of everything that is to be said and heard in the Church, the Subject who absolutely, originally and finally moves, produces, establishes and realises in this matter. In dogmatics it is the doctrine of God which deals with this Subject as such. In the doctrine of God we have to learn what we are saying when we say "God". In the the doctrine of God we have to learn to say "God" in the correct sense. If we do not speak rightly of this Subject, how can we speak rightly of His predicates?
But in relation to this Subject, we are at once contronted with the problem of knowledge. All speaking and hearing in the Church of Jesus Christ entirely rests upon and is concerned with the fact that God is known in the Church of Jesus; that is to say, that this Subject is objectively present to the speakers and hearers, so that man in the Church really stands before God. If it were not so, if man did not really stand before God, if God were not the object of his perception, viewing and conception, and if he did not know God - whatever we understand by "know" - then he could not speak and hear about Him. Then everything declared and heard in the Church would have no Subject and it would be left in the air like an empty sound. Then the church, if it lives only by what is said and heard in it, would not be alive; or its life would be merely an apparent life, life in a dream-world with those subjectless images and concepts as phantasies of its imagination. But if the life of the Church is not just a semblance, the knowledge of God is realised in it. This is the presupposition which we have first of all to explain in the doctrine of God. We have to learn how far we can know God and therefore speak and hear about him."
I know these two opening paragraphs have not taken us into the nitty gritty of Barth's theology, but on the face of it does Barth say anything here at least that would be objectionable to most fundamentalists?
Last edited: