What do you think of Karl barth?

[Scottish Knight]

I don't know that much about him but his name keeps cropping up a lot. I'm thinking of reading up on him. He's classed as a Reformed theologian - how reformed was he? Just interested what you guys think about his theology.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

He is a liberal heretic. He is not reformed although he claimed it. The PC-USA loves him if that tells you anything.

 

[kenrapoza]

Well - "Reformed"...hmmm...

While Karl Barth is considered to be one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, he is also considered to be one of the fathers of "neo-orthodoxy". He is kind of hard to place, because most conservatives consider Barth to be a liberal, but Barth was actually a fierce opponent of the liberal theologies of his day. His neo-orthodoxy is (as far as I understand it) a description of his view of the inspiration of Scripture. It seems like what Barth is saying is that it is not the objective word in the text which is inspired of God, but rather that the inspiration of Scripture refers to it's effect in the human soul.

Another significant departure in Barth's theology from Reformed orthodoxy is his teaching on election. It seems that in Barth's view, Christ himself is both the elect one and the reprobate one. Christ came and showed us that God is for us (i.e., humanity). I don't know how he formulates the atonement, but it seems that Barth's view leads to a type of universalism.

Reading Barth can be very confusing though because he seems to very easily slip in and out of the categories we are accustomed to in theology. Sometimes it's hard to really get a grasp of his meaning. Some things you will read in Barth will make you say "Wow, this guy has got it nailed!" other things will make you say "He can't be saying what it looks like he's saying!". It's almost like a Western Christian trying to understand the writings of Eastern Orthodoxy without first realizing that there are two completely different theological paradigms that must be understood first.

Hopefully others more knowledgeable in Barth will clear things up!

 

[hedrick]

He is a liberal heretic. He is not reformed although he claimed it. The PC-USA loves him if that tells you anything.

I've heard that claim before, but I don't see it. I hear more about Calvin than Barth, and to the extent that people read modern theology, he's far from the only one.

At the level of Wikipedia I suppose the PCUSA is Barthian. They say he held mostly orthodox views but not the basis for it, inerrancy. It's certainly true that the PCUSA holds mostly orthodox views and mostly doesn't accept inerrancy. But I don't get the sense that it's specifically based on Barth. The problem is that the debate over inerrancy started well before Barth became well-known, and the mostly normal Reformed theology is simply a result of being Presbyterian. But I don't sense much specific Barthian influence. Among other things, i don't think the PCUSA has quite the same hostility to natural theology that he did. And Barth was hostile to 19th Cent liberalism such as Schliermacher, and I don't think that hostility necessarily extends to the PCUSA.

 

[Anoetos]

"liberal" is a pretty precise, historical term and it really doesn't fit Barth. Ken has given an excellent run-down on him above so I don't have much to add except to underline the point about him being pretty confusing to modern evangelicals.

Frankly, IMO, unless you're embarking upon a seminary program and need a grounding in the historical roots of theological post-modernism, or are planning to interact with the smallest segment of American Protestantism (the neo-orthodox), there's really no reason to read him. His great legacy seems to be the idea that the Bible is true because of the belief of people in it. This idea has done a lot of damage to the church, IMO, and so, it may be that he is actually more insidious than an outright "liberal" since, again, as Ken has pointed out, he sometimes seems so right.

His epistemology is jacked.

 

[Scottish Knight]

"liberal" is a pretty precise, historical term and it really doesn't fit Barth. Ken has given an excellent run-down on him above so I don't have much to add except to underline the point about him being pretty confusing to modern evangelicals.

Frankly, IMO, unless you're embarking upon a seminary program and need a grounding in the historical roots of theological post-modernism, or are planning to interact with the smallest segment of American Protestantism (the neo-orthodox), there's really no reason to read him. His great legacy seems to be the idea that the Bible is true because of the belief of people in it. This idea has done a lot of damage to the church, IMO, and so, it may be that he is actually more insidious than an outright "liberal" since, again, as Ken has pointed out, he sometimes seems so right.

His epistemology is jacked.

Thanks for all the replies, I certainly won't be reading his work - I think it's something like 17 volumes - but I like learning a little bit about these big historical names

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Thanks for all the replies, I certainly won't be reading his work - I think it's something like 17 volumes - but I like learning a little bit about these big historical names

Yay!

Karl Barf is awful. You would spend you time better playing video games.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I recommend reading and listening to Cornelius Van Til (Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Seminary for 40+ years), I recommend all of his many writings. He wrote extensively on Karl Barth.

It really grieves me how few of Van Til's writings are in print and widely available (most of them only sold at Westminster bookstore and while they have a good selection, they are rather expensive for paperbacks and the number of pages, quality of print and cover). Most of Van Til's work is fading away, in the meantime you can go to Christianbook.com (I love Christianbook.com btw) and get an excellent deal on Barth's Church Dogmatics in nice hardcover format. I do not own even one of Van Til's writings in hardcover format. I think all of Van Til's works should be collected and with nice clear text in hardcover format. Years ago Logos/Libronix offerend a huge collection of his writings (complete I think) in their format for $50 (I have a copy), but now that their software has been updated to a newer version, the new offer for essentially the same thing (only difference I know of is the works broken into individual files) is $200. While it is still a good deal, it is out of the average person's price range.

So not only are the works of an unorthodox heretic (Barth) more widely available, they are in a more formats. Anybody else see something wrong with this picture?

 

[RefCath]

I don't know that much about him but his name keeps cropping up a lot. I'm thinking of reading up on him. He's classed as a Reformed theologian - how reformed was he? Just interested what you guys think about his theology.

Barth's theology is very interesting, for a taster try his Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. Thomas F Torrance's introduction to Barth is also worth a read as is Engaging with Barth which is written by evangelicals.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I've heard that claim before, but I don't see it. I hear more about Calvin than Barth, and to the extent that people read modern theology, he's far from the only one.

At the level of Wikipedia I suppose the PCUSA is Barthian. They say he held mostly orthodox views but not the basis for it, inerrancy. It's certainly true that the PCUSA holds mostly orthodox views and mostly doesn't accept inerrancy. But I don't get the sense that it's specifically based on Barth. The problem is that the debate over inerrancy started well before Barth became well-known, and the mostly normal Reformed theology is simply a result of being Presbyterian. But I don't sense much specific Barthian influence. Among other things, i don't think the PCUSA has quite the same hostility to natural theology that he did. And Barth was hostile to 19th Cent liberalism such as Schliermacher, and I don't think that hostility necessarily extends to the PCUSA.

I was raised in a large PCUSA church directly affiliated with a PCUSA seminary (Dubuque). Overall, there was little to no theology in the sermons of my youth. What theology did emerge was neo-orthodox in which the minister carefully parsed his verbiage to sound eminently orthodox to the older and more conservative members, but to the cogniscenti he was assuredly and safely liberal. There was a very strong current of universalism in the church which swept away any consideration of the total depravity (or any depravity by any definition) of man.

Three years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Sunday morning service of the largest PCUSA church (First) in my city (Davenport). The minister devoted his sermon to a discussion of his personal struggles in coming to terms with the concept of evil. Although he emotionally found the very idea repugnant he finally admitted that evil does exist (as evidenced by the Bush administration).

Whether or not Karl Barth ever had an influence or intention to push the PCUSA into its current politically liberal stance is highly debatable. What is evident, however, is the impact of his neo-orthodoxy in PCUSA seminaries and secondarily, in the pews of PCUSA churches.

I agree that Van Til was a vastly superior theologian to Barth. He, unfortunately, was thoroughly orthodox - and understandable.

 

[dms1972]

GC Berkouwer has written an assessment of Barth's Theology called The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth.