Barth and Inerrancy

[Resha Caner]

Since the issue of Biblical inerrancy comes up often, I wonder how many unbelievers are familiar with Barth's position and what they think of it.

 

[Davian]

 

[Resha Caner]

Not much to observe at the moment. So far it's just crickets chirping ... [edit] or maybe that's my answer - no one is familiar with Barth.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not sure what this thread is supposed to show. Is it a shock that atheists really don't care about the details of doctrinal skirmishes between various brands of Christianity about the nature of scriptural-based knowledge?

 

[Resha Caner]

Not sure what this thread is supposed to show. Is it a shock that atheists really don't care about the details of doctrinal skirmishes between various brands of Christianity about the nature of scriptural-based knowledge?

I happen to think nuances can be important. I don't particularly like being accused of things I don't believe. So, I don't think brushing over an idea one doesn't understand is a good practice ... but if you don't care, I'm fine with you moving on.

 

[essentialsaltes]

From the Wikipedia:

"Some fundamentalist critics have joined liberals in referring to Barth as "neo-orthodox" because,[30] while his theology retains most or all of the tenets of their understanding of Christianity, he is seen as rejecting the belief which is a linchpin of their theological system: biblical inerrancy. Such critics believe the written text must be considered to be historically accurate and verifiable and see Barth's view as a separation of theological truth from historical truth.[31] Barth could respond by saying that the claim that the foundation of theology is biblical inerrancy is to use a foundation other than Jesus Christ, and that our understanding of Scripture's accuracy and worth can only properly emerge from consideration of what it means for it to be a true witness to the incarnate Word, Jesus."

To the extent that he discards inerrancy, yay, I guess.

I'm not sure what it means to found theology on Jesus Christ, so without knowing more (which would not be all that interesting to me) I can't really say.

 

[Resha Caner]

To the extent that he discards inerrancy, yay, I guess.

I'm not sure what it means to found theology on Jesus Christ, so without knowing more (which would not be all that interesting to me) I can't really say.

If the whole topic of inerrancy is not interesting to you, OK. But I guess one of my points would be that it seems a bit disingenuous to engage in discussions about inerrancy and then shrug off the view of the primary theologian of the 20th century as irrelevant.

I'm relatively new to Barth myself. Not that anyone cares, but the reason is that my church essentially rejects his position on inerrancy. However, I personally think he makes some interesting points. I'm not ready to jump in with both feet and fully embrace his position. I'm still mulling it over - hence my question here.

There are some warranted criticisms. For example, the evangelical criticism you noted that it could divorce theological truth from historical truth. I don't think that is a determined outcome of Barth's view, but it could go that way.

The criticism I would expect from non-believers is that it might allow a Christian to set a theological conclusion and work backwards to the premise. Again, I don't think that is a determined outcome, but people could probably use it that way.

But if no one is familiar with Barth, this discussion probably isn't going anywhere.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Barth was neo-orthodox. He used what sounded like the language of Biblical orthodoxy, but what he meant did necessarily signify that he actually trusted the Biblical account. He was very subtle.

 

[Resha Caner]

Barth was neo-orthodox. He used what sounded like the language of Biblical orthodoxy, but what he meant did necessarily signify that he actually trusted the Biblical account. He was very subtle.

Is it wrong to be subtle? It seems to me people often want to make complex topics simple, and when that doesn't happen they start throwing out subtle insults (and some not so subtle).

 

[faroukfarouk]

Is it wrong to be subtle? It seems to me people often want to make complex topics simple, and when that doesn't happen they start throwing out subtle insults (and some not so subtle).

Take Barth's commentary on Romans, for example, published in 1918. Roman Catholics reading what he says about the central doctrine of justification would say: Hey, he believes the Roman Catholic position. Protestants - who don't read carefully - might say: Hey, he believers the Protestant position.

So what? It seems to me that Barth was more interested in politicking than in actually following what the Bible teaches. Infusing human merit supposedly to earn salvation is no issue to be vague about. Yet this is what he seems to do - seemingly for political reasons - and I can't trust his theology.

There was a famous occasion when Carl Henry - editor of Christianity Today - asked Barth about his views on the resurrection, and the vague reply which he expressed gave many people the impression that Barth did not really believe in the literal, bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

So what? It seems to me that Barth was more interested in politicking than in actually following what the Bible teaches. Infusing human merit supposedly to earn salvation is no issue to be vague about. Yet this is what he seems to do - seemingly for political reasons - and I can't trust his theology.

Ah, well, being vague is different than being subtle. Yes, it's fair to take issue with someone's vagaries. I do get a similar impression of Barth in some of the things he said, but I wouldn't say he was without a point to make.

 

[bhsmte]

If the whole topic of inerrancy is not interesting to you, OK. But I guess one of my points would be that it seems a bit disingenuous to engage in discussions about inerrancy and then shrug off the view of the primary theologian of the 20th century as irrelevant.

I'm relatively new to Barth myself. Not that anyone cares, but the reason is that my church essentially rejects his position on inerrancy. However, I personally think he makes some interesting points. I'm not ready to jump in with both feet and fully embrace his position. I'm still mulling it over - hence my question here.

There are some warranted criticisms. For example, the evangelical criticism you noted that it could divorce theological truth from historical truth. I don't think that is a determined outcome of Barth's view, but it could go that way.

The criticism I would expect from non-believers is that it might allow a Christian to set a theological conclusion and work backwards to the premise. Again, I don't think that is a determined outcome, but people could probably use it that way.

But if no one is familiar with Barth, this discussion probably isn't going anywhere.

The view of one theologian is all find and dandy, especially if it suits a persons specific needs.

When it comes to a thorough scholarly and historical review of the NT, I'm not sure Barth is in a better position to make conclusions that are more valid than others.

 

[Resha Caner]

The view of one theologian is all find and dandy, especially if it suits a persons specific needs.

When it comes to a thorough scholarly and historical review of the NT, I'm not sure Barth is in a better position to make conclusions that are more valid than others.

Granted there is no quantitative metric, but undoubtedly some theologians have a larger impact than others ... and Barth is in the MUCH LARGER impact category. So, I may admire Scaer more than Barth, but I have no doubt Barth is better known.

 

[bhsmte]

Granted there is no quantitative metric, but undoubtedly some theologians have a larger impact than others ... and Barth is in the MUCH LARGER impact category.

Yes, he does have a larger impact, just as some politicians of our time have larger impacts, because they have the skills to convince people of their positions.

The most appropriate term to use when it comes to various views on the meaning of scripture is this; speculation.

Hence, why there are so many differing views. Which is actually a good thing for many religious folks, because there is the ability to pick the one that suites your personal needs the most.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the whole topic of inerrancy is not interesting to you, OK. But I guess one of my points would be that it seems a bit disingenuous to engage in discussions about inerrancy and then shrug off the view of the primary theologian of the 20th century as irrelevant.

I'm just not sure how it's useful.

YEC: The Bible is inerrant. It says the earth is 6000 years old.

Atheist: Since the earth is not 6000 years old, your bible is errant.

YEC: IT IS INERRANT.

Atheist: Well, go read some Barth. Maybe he'll convince you that the concept of biblical inerrancy is fraught with difficulties that might displace the centrality of Jesus in your faith.

YEC: I DIDN'T COME FROM A MONKEY!!!

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm just not sure how it's useful.

YEC: The Bible is inerrant. It says the earth is 6000 years old.

Atheist: Since the earth is not 6000 years old, your bible is errant.

YEC: IT IS INERRANT.

Atheist: Well, go read some Barth. Maybe he'll convince you that the concept of biblical inerrancy is fraught with difficulties that might displace the centrality of Jesus in your faith.

YEC: I DIDN'T COME FROM A MONKEY!!!

I don't think I respond to you in that way. I'm not recommending this as a tool for conversations with people who operate in that manner. If that is who you wish to interact with, or if you are saying you and I interact in that manner, then I would agree this is of no use to you.

 

[Resha Caner]

The most appropriate term to use when it comes to various views on the meaning of scripture is this; speculation.

Hence, why there are so many differing views. Which is actually a good thing for many religious folks, because there is the ability to pick the one that suites your personal needs the most.

I don't know if you honestly think the discussion is a good thing or if that was sarcasm. Regardless, I think you're lumping too much into one category. Some discussions about the Bible are speculation, some are an exploration of possible truth ... that last bit seems to be lost on many, but in times ancient it was a commonly understood modus operandi of philosophy.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know if you honestly think the discussion is a good thing or if that was sarcasm. Regardless, I think you're lumping too much into one category. Some discussions about the Bible are speculation, some are an exploration of possible truth ... that last bit seems to be lost on many, but in times ancient it was a commonly understood modus operandi of philosophy.

Interpretation of so called; biblical truths are indeed speculation and there is no way around that, since no one has any objective means to declare their interpretation as the truth.

This is why so many interpret the book differently and give different explanations as to why God did this or God did that, etc..

To me it appears, there is a direct relationship between one grasping on to one person's interpretation as revealing the most truth, because it suits their personal needs.

Of course, this has been going on for centuries and will continue for many more centuries. By the way, nothing wrong with it, if whatever interpretation one holds to, actually helps them live a better life, not judge those who disagree with them and helps them to cope with life better.

In other words, pick your interpretation and put it to positive use.

 

[Resha Caner]

Interpretation of so called; biblical truths are indeed speculation and there is no way around that, since no one has any objective means to declare their interpretation as the truth.

Given that the word I used was "philosophy", I would agree with you. Sure, some are lobbying to have their personal agenda accepted as objective truth, but my point was that not all philosophy has that as its aim.

In other words, pick your interpretation and put it to positive use.

It's more this, but again your phrasing is cavalier.

 

[keith99]

Not sure what this thread is supposed to show. Is it a shock that atheists really don't care about the details of doctrinal skirmishes between various brands of Christianity about the nature of scriptural-based knowledge?

How many Christians know the difference between the positions of Hooker and St. Aquinas?