Barth and Inerrancy

keith99 said:

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

Click to expand...

One would have to ask others also, but Hooker has the reputation of being Biblical when it comes to central doctrines such as justification by faith, but he also was influenced by Medieval Schoolmen at least when it came to ecclesiastical polity. Melanchthon in Germany also was influenced by Medieval theology, in which Thomism loomed large.

Resha Caner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

Considering that Christians do this already I hardly see it as a risk. I find nothing in Scripture to support the idea of the Sanctity of Life, yet this along with the idea that life begins at conception are the starting point of the argument try to force the state to prohibit abortion. For abortion that last makes for the 3rd leg on a stool of ignoring or reading things into scripture for Scripture is quite clear that taking over the government is not the goal of Christ.

All I know of Barth is it seems Bonhoeffer thought well of him, thought enough to care abotu what Barth thought of Bonhoeffer's actions.

faroukfarouk said:

One would have to ask others also, but Hooker has the reputation of being Biblical when it comes to central doctrines such as justification by faith, but he also was influenced by Medieval Schoolmen at least when it came to ecclesiastical polity. Melanchthon in Germany also was influenced by Medieval theology, in which Thomism loomed large.

Click to expand...

Doh, that shows what happens when I try to get stuff in too fast, I left out the qualifier 'regarding communion'.

Resha Caner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm familiar with Barth, as well as Bonhoeffer, and even Per Lonning (a minor neo-orthodox/existential theologian whom I like).

But, since you specified you wanted 'unbelievers' to chime in, I've remained silent. I admit that it's also interesting to see to what extent unbelievers engage the spectrum of theological paradigms available, or whether they just dismiss most of it out of hand. I guess it's easier to just dismiss all of it. (And then again, I do understand that life is short and not everyone has all of the time in the world to explore philosophical and/or theological possibilities...)

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Resha Caner said:

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.



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

Click to expand...

I don't much care what you think of my phrasing.

It comes down to pick the interpretation which forms one's philosophy and put it to good use.

If one can do so without negatively judging others who disagree with them, not misrepresenting well evidenced realities and not needing to deny realities until the cows come home, then go for it and best wishes.

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, I'm familiar with Barth, as well as Bonhoeffer, and even Per Lonning (a minor neo-orthodox/existential theologian whom I like).

But, since you specified you wanted 'unbelievers' to chime in, I've remained silent. I admit that it's also interesting to see to what extent unbelievers engage the spectrum of theological paradigms available, or whether they just dismiss most of it out of hand. I guess it's easier to just dismiss all of it. (And then again, I do understand that life is short and not everyone has all of the time in the world to explore philosophical and/or theological possibilities...)

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Click to expand...

Theology is well, theology and are faith based beliefs.

I don't discount the benefit any specific theology can have for any one person, because some use theological beliefs in a positive way, while others don't.

Resha Caner said:

I know Aquinas but not Hooker. My knowledge of English theologians ends with Wycliffe. I hope I didn't come across as saying one must be conversant on every theologian who has existed, because I didn't mean that.

I hope you mean some and not all.

The word "sanctity" is loaded, but no support for the value of life? Hmm.

Click to expand...

I picked that particular because of this from Chapter 16 of The Screwtape Letters

The real fun is working up hatred between those who say "mass" and those who say "holy communion" when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker's doctrine and Thomas Aquinas', in any form which would hold water for five minutes.

Click to expand...

I was pretty sure I remembered the names right and I love how google gives autofil on oft run searches. I only got in screwtape and hooker and it gave me just the option I wanted. Oh and here is a link to a site with the answer:

mass - How do Aquinas and Hooker differ in their doctrine on communion? - Christianity Stack Exchange

Actually I could say either some or all for people starting with their conclusion and then finding the support in Scripture. Only some if we mean as an intentional or grossly negligent act. All, or at least very close, if I were to include occasionally seeing Scripture through slightly tinted glasses and/or not searching diligently for things that support a different view. On that last strict standard I can hardly find anyone who is willing to reexamine his position when a counter argument is presented blameworthy. That log in my own eye I will not ignore.

Not no support for a reasonable value to life. Rather no support for the worship of human life. The idolatry of not dying. Those who would condemn to Hell Henning von Tresckow for taking his own life. Yes I find no support for the phrase 'The sanctity of life' as used by many Christians today. Not in Scripture and even less in Church history, save for The Society of Friends and a few similar groups.

Resha Caner said:

Very true. Churches do on occasion give a place to humanity that is not Biblically supported. In fact, John 12:25 says otherwise.



In terms of suicide, it becomes a matter of what church practice one refers to. The practice of refusing last rites and burial, etc. is definitely unsupported. The Bible does, however, say things that can be interpreted as advocating against suicide: Ecc 7:17, Psalm 118:17, 1 Cor 3:16-17, etc. Further, suicide can be considered self-murder.

Click to expand...

There was a reason I picked Henning von Treschow. He was probably the most central person to the plots against Hitler. After the July 22nd attempt failed it was just a matter of time until he was arrested and tortured. He could have implicated scores of others. Instead he tried to make it look like a partisan attack and then held a hand grenade under his chin and pulled the pin. It seems the initial reaction was that he was a hero. When his involvement was found out his body was exhumed by the NAZIs and burned.

Yet some would condemn him as a suicide.

Perhaps you should have summarised his view, if you wanted to talk about it?

Is his view that the Bible is errant, but the Holy Spirit can use it to teach? Fair enough.

Before I lost faith I thought the Bible was errant, but had inspired parts. So there was something to learn from it. Perhaps that's slightly different though.

Resha Caner said:

I know Bonhoeffer's story better than von Treschow's. I wouldn't call him a hero for committing suicide, but I would call him a hero for making a real attempt to stop Hitler. Maybe you would consider that a petty distinction, but I think it an important one.

I think it's important because of your last comment about condemning him for suicide. I don't think anyone should ever be condemned for suicide. IMO that is an unconscionable act, and unfortunately churches have been involved in such things. Instead, I would say that when someone is contemplating suicide every thing possible should be done to stop it and get them the help they need. It shouldn't be pointed to as a heroic act.

In von Treschow's case, it would mean trying to rescue him from Nazi capture.

Click to expand...

He was called a Hero by the NAZIs at first because his ruse worked for a time and they thought he had died in battle.

I'd consider someone who takes his own life to remove the chance that he would eventually under torture reveal others involved a hero.

I consider Ewald Heinrich von Kleist a hero even though his suicide bomb attempt was washed out.

There is a fundamental difference between someone who woudl like ot live and realizes their death would serve a purpose and someone who simply want to die.

Resha Caner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nope, never heard of this person.

essentialsaltes said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ah, got it. I was raised Roman Catholic, so it's always gone without saying that not every part of the Bible is literally and historically true, and it doesn't really matter all that much that it's not.

Resha Caner said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Bible itself doesn't claim inerrancy, the church does because the concept is where religious institutions derive their authority.

Please remember Barth’s historical situation. He was writing within a Germany that had been taken over by the Nazis. Barth believed that much of the blame for this was due to liberal Christianity. In his estimation it had lost the ability to make any real difference. Thus Barth’s goal was to restore the proclamation of the Word, in a form in which the Word could judge all human activities. However he was still operating in a post-Enlightenment context, accepting critical methodologies. Thus he was trying to restore the substance of orthodoxy, but in a form that took into account modern thought. That’s why his orthodoxy has a lot of contact with Reformation theology but isn’t identical to conservative theology.

He’s not trying to hide liberalism behind conservative-sounding terms. Quite the contrary — he’s fighting against liberalism. It’s true that there are subtle differences throughout between him and conservatives. But there's nothing hidden about that fact.

Compounding the problem is his style. He is incredibly verbose. He refers to a wide variety of sources, ancient and modern. He does every topic to death. But if you read him, you’ll see that much of the time he’s preaching sermons. And quite commonly they are addressed specifically to the problems he saw in the Church in his time, and are often engaged in controversies from his time which you’d need a commentary to understand. The extreme verbosity gives much of the appearance of vagueness.

I’m not a Barthian. I find his ways of writing and his thought uncongenial. I think his treatment of liberal theology was misleading, and ended up damaging the Church. But before judging him you might want to be sure you understand what he was trying to do. Because I’m not a Barthian I’ll point you to people who are. Google turned up the following interesting paper from an evangelical point of view explaining the positives of what Barth was trying to do:
Karl Barth; Time For an Evangelical Reappraisal?. However the following paper agrees more closely with my observations from the little reading I’ve done of Barth: http://theologyandpraxis.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/theology__praxis_presentation_1.doc.

Barth is well-known for seeing Scripture as a witness to God and God’s acts, and as a human creation. I think that is inevitable for someone operating in a world informed by the Enlightenment. What’s interesting is where he takes this. Obviously he agrees with liberalism in seeing the Bible as a human creation. But he also thinks liberal Christianity is a dead end. So what different path does he suggest. The difference is that despite being a human creation, the writers of the Bible were raised up by God to do their work. Thus, recognizing its humanity, we are still called to accept it and be judged by it.

Quoting from the second paper:

“For Barth, inspiration and inerrancy is a matter of miracle and mystery or paradox. He believed that the Protestant doctrine of verbal inspiration did “incalculable damage” and shifted revelation to a level that became “subject to human investigation and control” and he was also comfortable in affirming the fallibility and authority of the scriptures. It is a miracle that fallible human words become the Word of God like Jesus healing the blind and the sick. The authority of scripture does not come from a “contingent outcome of scientific or historical corroboration” but from faith; not from inerrancy but an embrace of the mystery or paradox of something both divine and human.”

I’m uninterested in arguing about inerrancy. People who assert it do so as a matter of faith. Because they reject evidence as a matter of principle, no discussion with them is useful. The interesting question for me is once we realize the human element in Scripture, what do we do with it. Much of liberal theology attempts to analyze Scripture in detail, figure out what “really happened” and use that. Barth would argue that this is a mistake, that Scripture comes from God, and despite its human nature, is still God’s Word to us. Calvin is known for using the Incarnation as an analogy for Scripture. It seems to me that Barth is doing the same.

(Just to be clear, Barth's primary opposition was not the folks who tried to figure out what really happened. It was to folks who in effect turned the Biblical message into abstract philosophy. That's one other possible reaction to the Enlightenment: to see the Bible as an early way of thinking about our place in the universe, and effectively replace it by existential philosophy or something like that. That was the approach Barth was most directly attacking.)

I don't accept this approach myself, but it’s still a serious alternative that people should understand.

Resha Caner said:

I don't consider myself an expert on Barth, so I thought it best to see what others knew first. My impression is that he avoided giving a yes/no answer to the question, and (as someone else pointed out) focused on criticizing Protestants who seem to put more faith in the Bible than they do in Christ.

Click to expand...

I assumed you had read about him, if you wanted to talk about his ideas.

I've not completely made up my mind, so I'm afraid I waffle a bit on what Barth says. I would agree he sometimes seems to be vague and evasive.

But other times I think he makes a good point - that "inerrancy" carries a lot of baggage that doesn't really impinge on whether the Bible is true or not. One principle of Lutheran Confessionalism is that theology should not hinge on a single verse. So if your theology changes by adding or subtracting a particular verse, you need to reconsider. Inerrancy, as I understand it, does not mean the canon can never change. It means that whatever would be added to the canon cannot contradict what came before ... or that you can't go through and remove a verse here and there so the Bible better supports your view.

Click to expand...

Don't you think that the OT God (murdering everyone) is quite different from Jesus? I know you can make it fit, but essence doesn't seem the same.

I'm not sure why you are talking about change. I'd say that something isn't inerrant if it has errors. Change isn't necessarily error.

An example, then would be Mark 16:9-20. It seems highly probable those verses were added to what the original author recorded. But inerrancy does not depend on the author of that text being Mark. It does not depend on every word of the text remaining the exact words that Mark purportedly wrote. I am not aware that those verses contradict any other part of Scripture. If they did, I would think they should be removed.

Click to expand...

So you think that additions could have been inspired too?

So, when people start arguing about how the Bible is imperfect because it's changed, that is not at all convincing to me. There are other such issues that people try to argue that has nothing to do with my understanding of inerrancy, and I see Barth making some similar points.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think the Bible is imperfect because it portrays an immoral God (at times), and can't always get it's story straight (what happen at the resurrection? How many chariots in the OT?). I'm not sure about it's factual accuracy.

Also, some translations use the word unicorn. So which translation can we trust? Only the original? But then additions wouldn't be allowed. Some question whether the new Testament even mentions homosexuality, or if that is just bad translation.