SAET Blog

Karl Barth Posts

  • January 8, 2011 by Gerald Hiestand

    What’s Up with Barth?

    For those of you familiar with Barth, I’m looking for a little help.

    I was reared in a theological context where Barth was viewed with suspicion. I’ve been reading him (and about him) as of late and find him to be an engaging and thoughtful theologian. While he would never be mistaken for an evangelical (given his doctrine of Scripture/revelation, in particular) he seems orthodox. For instance, in his Evangelical Theology (p. 103) he implicitly affirms the incarnation, the virgin birth, Christ’s descent into Hell,  the bodily resurrection, Nicean Trinitarianism, and Chalcedonian Christology.  Does Barth hold to any un-orthodox positions, “orthodoxy” being broadly understood in the larger Western tradition? I’ve been told his soteriology/view of election tends toward universalism, without quite landing there, but I’m not sure that would qualify him as un-orthodox.

    I’m not looking for a detailed explanation, simply looking for someone to flag the issues.

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | Karl Barth

    10 Comments

  • November 9, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

    Barth on Apologetics and Doubt

    When it comes to apologetics, Barth (who says he is indebted to Anselm’s Proslogion on this matter) insists we must not suppose that we stand as a neutral observer, adding up the pros and cons of God’s existence. This is precisely because there is no place we can stand outside of God — above God — to  judge him. The “God” that we would  prove in this way cannot be the true God, for the true God is not subject to human judgment. Thus we do not argue from a neutral place to the existence of God, but rather from the existence of God toward other conclusions. God is the first principle that we assume in faith, who in turns makes sense of all other principles .   He goes on to talk about how doubt can never be put to rest as long as we suppose ourselves able to stand in judgment over God.

    “The doubter cannot free himself from doubt, even by persuading himself to will to doubt no more, even by performing this sacrificium [i.e., utilizing the intellect]. And the doubter cannot free other doubters from their doubt be exacting this sacrificium from them –  perhaps by making it convincing, perhaps by inducing them to perform it themselves. He must not be a doubter at all if help is to come to him and through him to others. But that means that he must not think that he can choose and that therefor he can help himself and others. He must be bound already to the Word of God. Any desire to bind himself (emphasis mine) to the Word of God can only demonstrate to himself and others that in fact he is not yet bound. And any supposed certainty, built on a desire for this self-binding, will only show his actual uncertainty to himself and others. Binding by the Word of God (emphasis mine) must take place at the beginning (CD, II.I, p.9).

    That bit about doubt strongly resonates with me,  and has rich pastoral implications that I need to think more carefully about — not only for others, but even more chiefly for myself. God binds himself to us through the Word Made Flesh. We do not bind ourselves to him via our intellect.

    Thomas shares a similar sentiment when he writes, “[Sacred doctrine] does not argue in proof of its principles, which are articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else” (Summa, I.I. 8). And I recall Lewis writing something along the lines of, “I do not believe in the Sun because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

    As I understand it, this basic insight about faith as a first principle is the chief starting point of Reformed Epistemology.

    Categories: Apologetics | General | Gerald Hiestand | Karl Barth | Thomas Aquinas

    1 Comment

  • October 6, 2010 by Matthew Mason

    Personal Presence and Address

    Mark Thompson’s essay on Barth’s doctrine of Scripture (in Engaging with Barth), strikes a very happy balance between firm critique and genuine appreciation. The following comment stood out to me as a place where Barth can reorient evangelicals to their Reformational heritage:

    Barth…has been instrumental in ensuring that a new and proper emphasis has been placed on God’s presence in and with his word: the Bible, unlike any other piece of literature, is always read in the presence of its author. An influential contemporary account puts it this way: ‘To read [Holy Scripture] is to be caught up by the truth-bestowing Spirit of God.” (189, my italics; Thompson is citing John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, 95).

    In other words, we must remember the Spirit’s role in illumination as well as in inspiration. In Christ, we share in his Spirit, and therefore the historical distance between us and the writing of Scripture does not equate to a personal distance between us and Scripture’s Author. When engaging Scripture, we are not simply reading an ancient text, nor interpreting God’s Word before making applications to our current context. First and foremost, we are being caught up by God’s personal address as he is present with us in the act of reading.

    Categories: General | Hermeneutics | Karl Barth

    0 Comments