-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
how influential is Karl Barth in the Reformed Church?
- Thread starter FireDragon76
- Start date
GC Berkouwer is a dutch reformed theologian who has also critiqued Barth, while at the same time finding Van Til's analysis and interpretation doesn't correspond to the deepest intents of Barth's theology. Berkower is less sweeping in his criticisms than Van Til.
Van Til sees Barth's philosophical underpinnings influencing all of his theology, and so because Van Til disagrees with those he continually interprets Barth's theology in the light of his philosophy.
Berkower however writes on this that
"Van Til has no eye for the fact that often in the history of dogma particular philosophical assumptions played a part in a theology, assumptions, that is, in which and alongside of which an influence of the Word of God makes itself felt in such a way that it is impossible to deduce the theology logically and consequently from the particular philosophical assumptions. Because Van Til thinks that he can point out certain assumptions in Barth, he thinks he can draw the line of them on through, and so essential statements of Barth are neglected or distorted."
Van Til sees Barth's philosophical underpinnings influencing all of his theology, and so because Van Til disagrees with those he continually interprets Barth's theology in the light of his philosophy.
Berkower however writes on this that
"Van Til has no eye for the fact that often in the history of dogma particular philosophical assumptions played a part in a theology, assumptions, that is, in which and alongside of which an influence of the Word of God makes itself felt in such a way that it is impossible to deduce the theology logically and consequently from the particular philosophical assumptions. Because Van Til thinks that he can point out certain assumptions in Barth, he thinks he can draw the line of them on through, and so essential statements of Barth are neglected or distorted."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
