Featured Karl Barth

Your question is an oxymoron. Neo-Orthodoxy is not Theological Liberalism. Neo-Orthodoxy was a reaction against Theological Liberalism.

 

It is untrue in that your pastor friend from down the road fails to understand the central theme of Barth's Theology.

In Barth’s view, scientists and historians must be permitted to offer scientific and historical explanations of miracles, but Christians recognise that there is another “level of interpretation.” Here, Christians situate the event within “a larger, more encompassing framework,” and it is this framework that allows them to perceive the event as an act of God.

In other words, what an unbeliever may understand to be a mere coincidence the Christian would see evidence for the working of the Hand of God.

When Barth makes such statements it must be understood that He is talking about miracles of the second order. God temporarily intervening in the normal course of human events in such a way as to provide what is needed for His child or children while obscuring His actions from unbelievers. Rather like Christ did with parables. To be understood by His followers but not understood by the lost.

 

Never let someone else do your thinking for you. The best way to find out what Barth believed is to read Barth. Not what somebody says about Barth. To know Barth, read Barth.

 

How do you know that? What is the theological background and positions of the contributors?

 

Then you don't mean Karl Barth.

You will probably find things with him with which to disagree, Evan. I think that's normal. As you said, you don't agree with 5% of what MacArthur says, and given how much he talks that could amount to quite a bit of disagreeing going on. Laugh

I have a question, Evan, for my own clarification and I apologize for not asking earlier. I was in a mall on my phone, and simply did not notice your comment.

Were you saying that we should ignore God's work through John Wesley because he was not a Calvinist? Is that the criteria.....Calvinism?

 

Nah....Soren Kierkegaard died in 1855 (or something like that). They had no ties.

Actually, I'm reading "Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing" and then I'm going to re-read "Fear and Trembling". I have taken some insights that he offers regarding James 4:8. Does that mean I'm tied to Kierkegaard?

(hint....I don't take Barth, Kierkegaard, or MacArthur as authorities of my faith...but I do try to learn from all three)

 

Kierkegaard had been dead for 30 years when Barth was born. Besides which Kierkegaard was an existentialist who condemned all of organized Christendom.

 

In all fairness.....in his Epistle to the Romans, Barth does reference Kierkegaard several times (like Sproul references Barth). Maybe this is what Evan means.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

Learned what? They didn't agree on anything! One was a believer who rejected Theological Liberalism and the other denounced and attacked all of organized Christendom.

 

It is impossible that I was wrong (based on the fact that I was asking you a question). You need to read what I posted, Evan.

I asked if you believed Wesley had anything to contribute and you said “I agree.” That’s nonsense….here I was asking what you meant.

Then I asked between Piper, Sproul, or MacArthur….since they disagree on an important doctrine, which to ignore. You said none – SINCE THEY ARE CALVINISTS.

I’m asking you to clarify what you mean, brother.