Barth and Inerrancy

[hedrick]

So what is it you don't accept?

Again, please understand that I'm not an expert on Barth. I'm judging more people who seem to be influenced by him. But what I see in them, and I think it's in Barth as well, is an unwillingness to use the results of critical study.

I agree with his statement that we need to give the Word authority, and that the Holy Spirit speaks through it. This is, of course, a Reformation concept of Scripture. However people look at Scripture from different starting points, and I'm willing to be more explicit in doing that based on critical study than I think he is.

For example, traditional Reformation theology tends to let Paul set terms for issues involving salvation, and for Christology picks a few highly explicit passages to set the agenda. I prefer to start with Jesus' own teachings, and thus start most things in the Synoptics.

Thus means that rather than justification by faith, my core concept of how salvation works starts with Jesus' teachings on what it means to be a follower. I think there are some pretty good correspondences between the two, so that for example Jesus' teaching about God not giving up on any of his children corresponds to the standard Protestant concept of justification as a stable foundation based on God's election. But still, starting from Jesus' teachings gives a different flavor to theology.

I'm willing to accept that the 4th and 5th Cent theologians were trying to defend important considerations against compromises that would have damaged the Church. But I'm more skeptical of the usefulness of person and nature in defining God and the incarnation. While Barth tries to clarify these concepts, I prefer approaches like Wright's that reconceptualize things using NT categories.

Critical scholarship is willing to say that there are differing voices in Scripture, which sometimes don't agree. I'm more inclined to make an explicit choice in priority. Barth's approach to Scripture doesn't make those kinds of choices.

I can't go much further without violating CF rules.

In general my theology is based on current moderate Jesus scholarship, and tends to be built on Jesus' message as understood through that. Barth's is much more conventionally Protestant. And his doctrine of Scripture means that he doesn't make very full use of the results of critical scholarship.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Yes, I agree, bhsmte. Some theological thought structures are not beneficial to people, and some are helpful or even motivating to the good.

However, I don't think that theology is merely 'based' on beliefs, where beliefs are equated more or less with wishful thinking; it can also be more of a mixture of various forms of philosophically charged investigation and processed thought.

Peace

 

[Resha Caner]

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

I have read a little. But I don't consider that a simple read makes someone an expert. Are you suggesting I should only start threads on topics where I am offering information rather than seeking it?

I realize 9 times out of 10 people use a question in an OP as a set-up to push some agenda. I use rhetorical questions myself in the course of a discussion, but when I open a thread with a question I honestly want an answer.

Don't you think that the OT God (murdering everyone) is quite different from Jesus?

No. I can speculate about how such impressions are formed, but I don't see much use in that. I realize people try to make Jesus a cuddly stuffed toy, but in so doing they overlook that he could be harsh and even sarcastic. I also realize people try to make the OT the book of the angry god, but in so doing they overlook all the expressions of love, joy, mercy, and even some mirth.

So you think that additions could have been inspired too?

Why not? Is there a time limit on inspiration? The Book of Malachi was obviously written after The Pentateuch, and so Malachi was a later addition to that first "canon" (if you'll allow me the liberty of calling it that). If that addition could be made, why not others?

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.

Change is one thing people throw at me as a challenge to inerrancy. It sounds like that's not much of an issue for you. There are other challenges as well, and you mention a few above.

I'm not trying to avoid the elephant in the room. I obviously think the Bible more reliable than you do - more historically reliable, more reliable as a moral guide, etc.

But some of the challenges that get thrown at me just seem silly. I'll mention another example. Suppose someone began telling you the history of the Iroquois at Kayahsutö'ke. I expect you'd reply with, "Huh?" So the person says, "Oh, it was a village in the same location as Baltimore." You then go to a friend and tell him how you just learned about the history of the Iroquois village at Baltimore. He laughs, "That's crazy. Baltimore didn't exist when the Iroquois lived in that area."

He may be right on a technicality, but does that mean the history you're conveying about the Iroquois is false? I would say no.

 

[Resha Caner]

Again, please understand that I'm not an expert on Barth. I'm judging more people who seem to be influenced by him. But what I see in them, and I think it's in Barth as well, is an unwillingness to use the results of critical study.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[bhsmte]

I have read a little. But I don't consider that a simple read makes someone an expert. Are you suggesting I should only start threads on topics where I am offering information rather than seeking it?

I realize 9 times out of 10 people use a question in an OP as a set-up to push some agenda. I use rhetorical questions myself in the course of a discussion, but when I open a thread with a question I honestly want an answer.



No. I can speculate about how such impressions are formed, but I don't see much use in that. I realize people try to make Jesus a cuddly stuffed toy, but in so doing they overlook that he could be harsh and even sarcastic. I also realize people try to make the OT the book of the angry god, but in so doing they overlook all the expressions of love, joy, mercy, and even some mirth.



Why not? Is there a time limit on inspiration? The Book of Malachi was obviously written after The Pentateuch, and so Malachi was a later addition to that first "canon" (if you'll allow me the liberty of calling it that). If that addition could be made, why not others?



Change is one thing people throw at me as a challenge to inerrancy. It sounds like that's not much of an issue for you. There are other challenges as well, and you mention a few above.

I'm not trying to avoid the elephant in the room. I obviously think the Bible more reliable than you do - more historically reliable, more reliable as a moral guide, etc.

But some of the challenges that get thrown at me just seem silly. I'll mention another example. Suppose someone began telling you the history of the Iroquois at Kayahsutö'ke. I expect you'd reply with, "Huh?" So the person says, "Oh, it was a village in the same location as Baltimore." You then go to a friend and tell him how you just learned about the history of the Iroquois village at Baltimore. He laughs, "That's crazy. Baltimore didn't exist when the Iroquois lived in that area."

He may be right on a technicality, but does that mean the history you're conveying about the Iroquois is false? I would say no.

This is all one of the benefits of faith beliefs, the ability to interpret the bible a certain way and or the opinions of theologians on the same.

There is tons of speculation involved when people go down these paths and the speculation usually involves trying to reconcile their personal beliefs.

Nothing wrong with that and it is very understandable from a psychological perspective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is all one of the benefits of faith beliefs, the ability to interpret the bible a certain way and or the opinions of theologians on the same.

There is tons of speculation involved when people go down these paths and the speculation usually involves trying to reconcile their personal beliefs.

Nothing wrong with that and it is very understandable from a psychological perspective.

...while I think you are correct to an extent in your assessment of Christians from a psychological perspective, I would also assert that just because there are a variety of interpretations of the bible (as there are in other fields of thought), this social phenomenon doesn't mean that all interpretations are valid or even equal. Moreover, not everything that falls from the lips of various Christians is mere "speculation."

 

[bhsmte]

...while I think you are correct to an extent in your assessment of Christians from a psychological perspective, I would also assert that just because there are a variety of interpretations of the bible (as there are in other fields of thought), this social phenomenon doesn't mean that all interpretations are valid or even equal. Moreover, not everything that falls from the lips of various Christians is mere "speculation."

I would view speculation as positions or interpretations that lack objective confirmation as being correct.

Like I said, it is understandable that this speculation would exist, as people are searching for answers and or support for their personal belief. Nothing unhealthy about it either, unless a person assumes their speculation is correct and everyone else's, is wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would view speculation as positions or interpretations that lack objective confirmation as being correct.

Like I said, it is understandable that this speculation would exist, as people are searching for answers and or support for their personal belief. Nothing unhealthy about it either, unless a person assumes their speculation is correct and everyone else's, is wrong.

So, let's say in the case of some obscure passage of the bible, such as Matthew 24:28, do you think that the choices of interpretation for this verse are all equally speculation, any of which will lack objective confirmation? (Just wondering what your assumptions are within this kind of context.)

 

[bhsmte]

So, let's say in the case of some obscure passage of the bible, such as Matthew 24:28, do you think that the choices of interpretation for this verse are all equally speculation, any of which will lack objective confirmation? (Just wondering what your assumptions are within this kind of context.)

Do you have the choices of interpretation and how do you know the choices are limited to the one's you are aware of?

A few factors go into this with the NT:

-Is the scripture translated correctly, based on the fact we are working off copies of copies of copies?
-What is the correct interpretation of the actual words?
-How historically credible are the stories in the NT?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

bhsmte

Do you have the choices of interpretation and how do you know the choices are limited to the one's you are aware of?

There's a small handful; the exact interpretation of the passage isn't what I'm trying to arrive in my discussion with you. What I'm trying to arrive at is that, by your own lights, do you think that you could discern the possibility that one interpretation is indeed better, more accurate, more substantial, and perhaps even less than mere speculation that the others?

A few factors go into this with the NT:

-Is the scripture translated correctly, based on the fact we are working off copies of copies of copies?
-What is the correct interpretation of the actual words?
-How historically credible are the stories in the NT?

Ok. You have a good grasp on how to proceed with hermeneutic study, which is more than I can say for a lot of people.

Despite the fact that there may be more to consider in interpreting the verse that I've cited, do you think that if you utilize ALL of the modes and methods available to your modern mind that you might be able to interpet the verse in a way that you personally are confident of, up and above what other interpreters might state alternatively? Is this possible? [The essence of this question is not to determine its metaphysical truth, but rather that, even if it is a lie, you can understand the statement as it may have been intended by the writer and have a cognizant awareness that you may indeed be correct.]

 

[KCfromNC]

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

That too. This thread is starting to read a lot like the "you atheists are ignoring the same sophisticated theology that almost all Christians also ignore" stuff I've seen before. It is all well and good to have written a book or whatever, but if my guess is true and most laypeople have no idea who this guy is, are atheists really wrong to ignore him when discussing with a general audience?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That too. This thread is starting to read a lot like the "you atheists are ignoring the same sophisticated theology that almost all Christians also ignore" stuff I've seen before. It is all well and good to have written a book or whatever, but if my guess is true and most laypeople have no idea who this guy is, are atheists really wrong to ignore him when discussing with a general audience?

...well, then. Are you implying that Christians are justified in ignoring David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche,Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, etc., etc., etc.?

 

[essentialsaltes]

...well, then. Are you implying that Christians are justified in ignoring David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche,Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, etc., etc., etc.?

Rational people having an argument are obliged to listen to what their conversational partners are saying. If a Christian quotes Barth, or an atheist quotes Hume, their interlocutors can't just say, "I ignore Barth/Hume."

But the OP seems to be suggesting that atheists have to learn about Barth so they can teach biblical inerrantists (who are ignorant about Barth) about Barth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

essentialsaltes

Rational people having an argument are obliged to listen to what their conversational partners are saying. If a Christian quotes Barth, or an atheist quotes Hume, their interlocutors can't just say, "I ignore Barth/Hume."

Agreed. And it is this very thing that I see happening quite often among many people, whether Christian, Atheists, or whatnot.

But the OP seems to be suggesting that atheists have to learn about Barth so they can teach biblical inerrantists (who are ignorant about Barth) about Barth.

Yes, I can see that, but I was tracing more or less KC's comments in the thread.

Peace

 

[Resha Caner]

But the OP seems to be suggesting that atheists have to learn about Barth so they can teach biblical inerrantists (who are ignorant about Barth) about Barth.

Interesting. I guess I'm about to learn something. Why does my OP imply that? I didn't mean that at all.

Rational people having an argument are obliged to listen to what their conversational partners are saying. If a Christian quotes Barth, or an atheist quotes Hume, their interlocutors can't just say, "I ignore Barth/Hume."

I would agree with this, but I wasn't even going this far. I was just asking if any unbelievers were familiar with Barth's position on inerrancy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting. I guess I'm about to learn something. Why does my OP imply that? I didn't mean that at all.

I stand corrected. I do seem to have misunderstood from the beginning. I'm sorry.

 

[Resha Caner]

I stand corrected. I do seem to have misunderstood from the beginning. I'm sorry.

You're not the only one who seems to have thought that. I guess I can understand the assumption that if I'm asking about Barth I count him as important, and therefore think people should be informed about him. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

This "talking to people" thing can be really hard.

 

[Paradoxum]

I have read a little. But I don't consider that a simple read makes someone an expert. Are you suggesting I should only start threads on topics where I am offering information rather than seeking it?

I realize 9 times out of 10 people use a question in an OP as a set-up to push some agenda. I use rhetorical questions myself in the course of a discussion, but when I open a thread with a question I honestly want an answer.

I don't think there's anything wrong with ask a genuine question, but this question seems so specific that few people will know about Barth enough to reply (without looking him up).

No. I can speculate about how such impressions are formed, but I don't see much use in that. I realize people try to make Jesus a cuddly stuffed toy, but in so doing they overlook that he could be harsh and even sarcastic.

I'm not sure why you use 'sarcastic' as an example of a bad thing. Do you really not think there is a difference between Jesus and the OT God? Can you give me an example of where he advocates things like genocide? 'Love your neighbour' isn't consistent with that.

He does talk about hell, but you can't know if he's over emphasising to make a point.

I also realize people try to make the OT the book of the angry god, but in so doing they overlook all the expressions of love, joy, mercy, and even some mirth.

So if a genocidal dictator says some nice things, would that make him an alright guy?

OT God uses nice words sometimes, but what does he do? Does he eradicate sickness, or poverty?

He doesn't kill and enslave people (for a while). I don't think that's worthy of applause.

If someone wrote a story where they attributed 'God's' actions to a person, you would say they were the bad guy. Imagine a King doing the same things.

Why not? Is there a time limit on inspiration? The Book of Malachi was obviously written after The Pentateuch, and so Malachi was a later addition to that first "canon" (if you'll allow me the liberty of calling it that). If that addition could be made, why not others?

I think that's a fair belief to have.

I'm not trying to avoid the elephant in the room. I obviously think the Bible more reliable than you do - more historically reliable, more reliable as a moral guide, etc.

Why do you think it's a decent book?

But some of the challenges that get thrown at me just seem silly. I'll mention another example. Suppose someone began telling you the history of the Iroquois at Kayahsutö'ke. I expect you'd reply with, "Huh?" So the person says, "Oh, it was a village in the same location as Baltimore." You then go to a friend and tell him how you just learned about the history of the Iroquois village at Baltimore. He laughs, "That's crazy. Baltimore didn't exist when the Iroquois lived in that area."

He may be right on a technicality, but does that mean the history you're conveying about the Iroquois is false? I would say no.

Do people say similar things to this in relation to the Bible?

(No offence meant by any replies in this post).

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you really not think there is a difference between Jesus and the OT God?

Jesus is God, so why would I see them as different? There are distinctions between the Father and the Son, but not the type you're looking for.

Can you give me an example of where he advocates things like genocide? 'Love your neighbour' isn't consistent with that.

Loving your Israelite neighbors means allowing them to be exterminated by the Amalekites because you don't like the word "genocide"? That doesn't seem consistent to me.

Yes, Jesus endorsed the OT in Matt 5:17.

He does talk about hell, but you can't know if he's over emphasising to make a point.

Um. Not fair. It would be like me saying, "Can you give me an example where Obama supported health care reform ... oh, but you can't reference anything related to the Affordable Care Act because I don't like that."

So if a genocidal dictator says some nice things, would that make him an alright guy?

That's a loaded question. You're going to need to revise your approach if you really want answers.

Why do you think it's a decent book?

This is a fair question, but an odd one. I'm not quite sure how to answer it sufficiently here. Maybe as a starting point I would say that when I buy a car I expect the manufacturer will know the most about it, and therefore can provide the best manual for its proper use.

Do people say similar things to this in relation to the Bible?

Yes.

 

[dms1972]

-