tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post6331362642523140518..comments2010-08-22T04:36:27.423+01:00Comments on Sky's the Limit: What's it all about? Karl BarthDai Corleonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15333621156097621666noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-36288699101044476972007-04-28T05:52:00.000+01:002007-04-28T05:52:00.000+01:00Webster's "Karl Barth" is not an easy read, but de...Webster's "Karl Barth" is not an easy read, but definitely a great resource for a more thorough and accurate look at what the good professor was up to. David, I appreciate the attempt at a "KB 101" summary, but there are numerous errors and misleading statements above.<BR/><BR/>One of the greatest struggles that followers of Karl Barth currently face, especially in the English-speaking West, is against those who continue to caricature and otherwise misrepresent the man and his theology. Much of this seems to stem from our teachers and our teachers' teachers, who read <I>CD</I> 1.1 when it was first published in English only half a century ago and failed to later correct their misunderstandings by reading the full <I>Dogmatics</I>.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14982514539447292224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-61998622011348866042007-04-20T08:25:00.000+01:002007-04-20T08:25:00.000+01:00Aric,What I said about Scripture's witness to Chri...Aric,<BR/><BR/>What I said about Scripture's witness to Christ was not meant to deny the witness of the Spirit. Without the Spirit's witness in, through and by the Word we cannot know Christ as a living, saving Person. The sacraments are given meaning by the Word. Without the explanatory power of Scripture, the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper have no symbolic meaning. The same goes for the water of baptism. As a Protestant, I don't agree that the church created Scripture or in continuing revelation. <BR/><BR/>I do not want to separate Scripture from the Church. The church is called into being, sustained, sanctified and directed by the Word. See Vanhoozer's <I>Drama of Doctrine</I> for a full account of the Scriptures in theo-dramatic relation to the Church.Dai Corleonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333621156097621666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-71575671684921352612007-04-20T02:32:00.000+01:002007-04-20T02:32:00.000+01:00I share your distaste for modernist theology, and ...I share your distaste for modernist theology, and I think if you read Barth you would absolutely love the potshots that he takes at the 19th century theologians he studied under and ultimately rejected in 1914. His rejection of liberalism is what put him on the map (his commentary on Romans did that), and I fear that conservative evangelicals are actually on their way back to a 19th century way of thinking about the faith. ID is a great 19th century byproduct.Chris TerryNelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03160910808665941467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-75823766929005638352007-04-20T02:04:00.000+01:002007-04-20T02:04:00.000+01:00He held that the Bible may become the Word of God ...<I>He held that the Bible may become the Word of God to us in a revelatory event, but that Scripture was not the Word of God written. Barth so emphasised Jesus Christ as the revelation of God that he seems to have forgotten that we cannot know Christ apart from the witness of Scripture.</I><BR/><BR/>But we DO know Jesus apart from scripture. Scripture is a primary source for knowledge about Jesus, but not the only. There is the testimony of the apostles transmitted through the church. The inward witness of the Holy Spirit. The sacraments themselves and of course God's ongoing revelation.<BR/><BR/>Scripture itself is the witness of the church not an arbitrary standard outside of the church as though it were only a "source" and not also depository. The church creates scripture not the other way around.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-20725646267843069362007-04-20T00:18:00.000+01:002007-04-20T00:18:00.000+01:00Chris, I fear I am using too much of Dr. Shy's ban...Chris, I fear I am using too much of Dr. Shy's bandwidth.<BR/><BR/>My intent was to caricature universalism in order to get back to the thread topic. I actually love academia and am very much involved, but more on the engineering side. I envy those who get to go on for more theology classes.<BR/><BR/>The flip side is that using the mind means not being blindly impressed. In the 19th century, the modernists repeated endlessly that to reject their ideas was to cease using your brain. Recently, we have been hearing that if you believe in ID, you are some sort of a retard. (keep in mind that engineering = science + ID.) The newest spin is that if you don't accept modernist theology, then you don't love God with all your mind. <BR/><BR/>May God's blessings be on David Shy and his blog as he tries to prove that one can love God with all his mind and still be orthodox.Looneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-71433546050901209472007-04-19T22:12:00.000+01:002007-04-19T22:12:00.000+01:00Looney, I'd like to hear what you perceive to be t...Looney, I'd like to hear what you perceive to be the difference between "loving God with all your mind" and "academics." Obviously you have some discrepancy in mind, no?<BR/><BR/>As for your caricature of Princeton Seminary, I can assure you that there are many fundamentalists at Princeton today, and Princeton has a long history of it. Read some Charles Hodge or B.B. Warfield and you'll see what I mean. Today, Princeton's student population is conservative by majority. The faculty is liberal by majority. Of course these are general categories, but even given their shades I think it's safe to say that Princeton is a unique combination.Chris TerryNelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03160910808665941467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-10597203108771152832007-04-19T06:03:00.000+01:002007-04-19T06:03:00.000+01:00Derek, I just got back from our church English sub...Derek, I just got back from our church English sub-group deacons meeting: 3Ph.d's, a few masters degrees, several seminary degrees and 2 more seminary masters in progress. There are only 10 of us. We live by our minds here in Silicon Valley, but we are still orthodox and nearly fundamentalist.<BR/><BR/>WTM goes to Princeton Seminary. 100 years ago, they had a professor named Henry van Dyke who split the Presbyterian denomination over his universalism. In his writings, Jesus is guru, but not Lord and Savior. Henry van Dyke did not have a Christian testimony, even though he was the head of the denomination and a genius.Looneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-64096444426958632862007-04-19T05:35:00.000+01:002007-04-19T05:35:00.000+01:00Looney:Let me humbly suggest you take time to read...Looney:<BR/><BR/>Let me humbly suggest you take time to read JP Moreland's book "Love the Lord with all your mind."<BR/><BR/>Although i doubt he would be a Barth fan, he does a great job demonstrating that a major reason the West came to write off christianity was due to the lack of intellect that had developed in Western Christendom.<BR/><BR/>So in response to this statement by you,<BR/><BR/>"Perhaps it is impossible for both academics and ordinary people to take the same religion seriously? Where ever academic theology has reigned, Christianity has not prospered. Where Christianity prospers, the influence of academia is negligible." <BR/><BR/>is in fact not only naive, but actaully the opposite of the truth of the situation. When Christianity flourishes, a well-formed intellectual commmunity is nearly always a part of that.derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14925043896803292539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-15467040624566097802007-04-19T02:12:00.000+01:002007-04-19T02:12:00.000+01:00Looney,I find your most recent comment so misguide...Looney,<BR/><BR/>I find your most recent comment so misguided and ill-informed that I can do nothing except register my profound disagreement and leave you to what I perceive to be prodigious delusion.W. Travis McMakenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12347103855436761304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-71780450750169409522007-04-19T01:42:00.000+01:002007-04-19T01:42:00.000+01:00"Karl Barth is the primary reason why there is a f..."Karl Barth is the primary reason why there is a form of orthodox Christianity that is taken seriously at all by academics who study theology or religion."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it is impossible for both academics and ordinary people to take the same religion seriously? Where ever academic theology has reigned, Christianity has not prospered. Where Christianity prospers, the influence of academia is negligible.Looneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-67118642679226214022007-04-18T23:26:00.000+01:002007-04-18T23:26:00.000+01:00Re Looney's most recent comment:Karl Barth is the ...Re Looney's most recent comment:<BR/><BR/>Karl Barth is the primary reason why there is a form of orthodox Christianity that is taken seriously at all by academics who study theology or religion. <BR/><BR/>Re David Sky's most recent comment: <BR/><BR/>When Barth most clearly discusses his position on universalism (last few pages of <I>Church Dogmatics</I> IV/3.1), it is clear that he can neither affirm nor deny universalism on the basis of his understanding of Scripture. Anyone who would quarrel with Barth here must out exegete him, not to mention prove against him that we do in fact have the transcendent and free creator savior of the world figured out. Heaven forbid that God should ever surprise us!<BR/><BR/>Finally, in a less sarcastic and more irenic mood, I am always pleased to find people in the more conservative Reformed circles who actually take the time to read Barth carefully. Indeed, Barth gave Berkouwer a lot of credit for doing this very thing, and it can even be argued that Barth made adjustments on the basis of some of Berkouwer's criticisms. In any case, I don't know why is should be so hard for Reformed theologians of any stripe to engage with Barth.W. Travis McMakenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12347103855436761304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-57987355813909691272007-04-18T14:32:00.000+01:002007-04-18T14:32:00.000+01:00Looking at the comments, I'm afraid that Barth wil...Looking at the comments, I'm afraid that Barth will be naively dismissed because of all the potential problems listed in this post. I would suggest everyone read John Webster's short introductory book on Karl Barth for a more comprehensive appraisal of what Barth does in each section of the Church Dogmatics. The fact is that Barth's doctrine of election does some heavy biblical exegesis of John 1, something that Calvin neglected to do. Barth's doctrine of scripture keeps God as the primary acting subject (like any good Reformed theologian would). If you know Calvin's view of the sacraments, you'll appreciate Barth's nuanced view of Scripture as the Word of God. Barth views the resurrection as a historical/real event, but because it is a miracle it necessarily supercedes any attempt by scientific proof. This goes hand in hand with Barth's view of revelation, which is both veiled and unveiled, revealed and hidden at once.<BR/><BR/>Overall, writing Barth off as an intellectual lightweight is just plain silly. If Christianity Today and Pope Pius XII (among many others) call him the greatest theologian of the 20th century, that says something.Chris TerryNelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03160910808665941467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-22148195706608520202007-04-17T22:28:00.000+01:002007-04-17T22:28:00.000+01:00Actually, I think this kind of Barthian muddle amo...Actually, I think this kind of Barthian muddle among theologians is a key reason that Christianity is having trouble being taken seriously.Looneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-6444862982983257382007-04-17T07:42:00.000+01:002007-04-17T07:42:00.000+01:00G'day Ben and welcome to my humble blog. I've look...G'day Ben and welcome to my humble blog. I've looked at your post on universalism. You said,<BR/><BR/>"Barth protests both against a system of universalism and against a denial of universalism!"<BR/><BR/>Thanks for clearing things up for me.Dai Corleonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333621156097621666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-60507967763030308952007-04-17T00:11:00.000+01:002007-04-17T00:11:00.000+01:00Hi David -- thanks for this interesting post. The ...Hi David -- thanks for this interesting post. The question of "universalism" is an interesting one -- and there are important reasons why Barth always protested against universalism. In case you're interested, I've tried to explain this in <A HREF="http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-i-am-not-universalist.html" REL="nofollow">a short post</A>.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-42370386467149158322007-04-16T15:40:00.000+01:002007-04-16T15:40:00.000+01:00If renegade and looney agree with me, I must be ri...If renegade and looney agree with me, I must be right!Dai Corleonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333621156097621666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-89541662247211542962007-04-16T15:28:00.000+01:002007-04-16T15:28:00.000+01:00Thanks David. Given that Barth doesn't seem clear...Thanks David. Given that Barth doesn't seem clear on whether he is a universalist or not, I am inclined to write him off as an intellectual lightweight. Maybe this is why he is so popular in theo-blogdom?Looneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801436449971512320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798510847669447578.post-30110322107061468862007-04-16T15:24:00.000+01:002007-04-16T15:24:00.000+01:00I'm still waiting to find out why Barth (Bart) is ...I'm still waiting to find out why Barth (Bart) is so great. If I answered my friends ambiguously on the historicity & inerrancy of Scripture & on the charge of universalism as Barth has I'd be quite likely labeled a heretic or something close. Interesting as he may be, I'd put no greater emphasis on him than I would Tillich or Scheiemacher. Help!Reformed Renegadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04649738389237095011noreply@blogger.com