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.
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!
Your post makes it sound as though God was helpless in controlling man.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.
You need to learn about the supremacy and sovereignty of God.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.
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.Modernist theology strikes again. This why Christian kids go off to school and get sent back atheists.
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.
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
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.
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 .
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.
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.
In other words religious philosophy in the language of man?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.
Francis Schaeffer is a fundamentalist polemicist. One shouldn't expect him to give a fair analysis of Barth.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?