I've had the pleasure of taking courses taught by two Barthian scholars---Dr. Paul Molnar (Trinitarian Christology) and Dr. David Haddorff (Christian Ethics)---at St. John's University in New York, so finding this video was a treat. Although I don't identify myself as Barthian, I do admire the breadth and depth of his work. His emphasis on divine freedom---God being God, over and against anthropocentric constructs---is one I find especially appealing.
Karl Barth was a very courageous man and applied the theology in real life also. While the multude of believers kept quite and tolerating the injustice happening in front of them he stood like a Ubermench The world and particularly the christendom needs such people to carry forward the spirit of the Gospel across the world.
The irony of using the fascist and explicitly antiChristian concept of Übermensch when celebrating Barth's fidelity to the gospel against the Nazis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch
I watched a guy preaching very recently and he portrayed Jesus as returning to judge and punish sinners most severely and harshly with wrath and vengeance because they hadn't accepted him as their saviour .
"A product of his time..." That is such a condescending statement. He was a brilliant mind that reasoned things to such an end that his works are still valued. You can't just dismiss him as being so simply influenced when you disagree with him. It just doesn't work.
she wasn't referring to any of his theological theories, but rather that he evidently absorbed societies perspective on women at the time, views which are now outdated, and thus he is a product of his time. She wasn't saying it to be condescending, but rather excuse his evidently sexist remarks
@@fictionfatale3913 I agree with Tim. I don't see why a opinion we disagree with ( regardless of its nature or essence) should be considered as a "product of his time" and opinions we agree with are seen as very courageous and good. Especially since we can see that he stood up against Hitler, it seems to me that he wasn't to much concerned about the mainstream in his time.
Karl Barth, one of the greatest thinkers of "EUROPEAN" Christendom. The worldview of the Messiah is, for sure, much older and larger than "EUROPEAN" Christendom!
I don't know about this qualification that you're trying to make. What does it matter that Barth was a European? Who else in the world is asking the same questions and trying to get at the same truths? This is what is important about Barth, or Kierkegaard, or someone not of a European background, such as the Catholic Cardinal Robert Sarah. "Qui Est Veritas?", as Pilate asked Christ, "What is Truth?". Truth is the point, and that is all that should matter about the work of a given person.
Recently saw Steven Crowder apply dialectics to the problem of vessels of wrath Romans 9 - 11 . There wasn't that simple either or Calvinism evangelical judgement . He seems to be saying in the style of Barth - the damned are not necessarily going to hell . It's a nice thought especially for me !
Notice, they sufficed Barth entirely as they said nothing of substance outside of the words "Jesus Christ". Entirely subjective interpretations of "Jesus Christ" follow.
Particularism is abhorrent in liberal ideology - therefore, Barth's project was an effort to avoid particularism while still trying to maintain some respect for the text, unlike the liberalism to which Barth was reacting. The fact that Barth nonetheless couldn't exegete these difficult texts on their face is certainly a fail.
This started out so well talking about Christ but just went downhill after that. This is the once great Princeton?? What does he mean by “fundamentalism” having “hindered” Christianity? I hope he’s not talking about the warriors of the faith before him like BB Warfield. And what of Barth’s supposed unrepentant immoral life, or his apparent universalism?
I have no academic background in theology, and much to my regret I only discovered Benjamin Warfield, not to mention John Calvin and the Puritans, in my fifties. I am now 70, a child of the foolish 1960s. The rest of my dire generation are into Yoga and Mindfulness. Barth said he could spend the rest of his life reading Calvin, and I feel sad I never read Calvin's Bible Commentaries until so late in life. A late wisdom is better than none. Jonathan Edwards is another late discovery and John Owen the English Calvin and A.W. Pink.
@@jackjohnhameld6401 I'm in my 50's right now and just discovering all of this! Better late than never - the Lord can and does work all things for the good, including a wasted youth.
4:25 This young lady needs to be told to shake off her modernist attitudes and to consider the truth of Barth's arguments. Her personal feelings are irrelevant about what Barth argued about the roles of men and women - is Barth right? That's all that matters. Answering this question can help one get around the rot inflicted on one's mind from this atrocious society of ours.
Regardless of his scholarly insight, he seems to of had an addiction to pipe smoking. Perhaps that was one area of the flesh he wasn't willing to give up.
Karl Barth was inconsistent, I have read a few articles on him. From what I know he was influenced by a liberal professor but the good thing was later on in life he went to a solid and sound theological seminary, to unlearn the liberalism in his theology. So in the end it kind of explains why he made liberal statements but then again said the complete opposite like believed God's Word was inspired but had mistakes. Do I believe he was saved? I don't know hard to say, but the good news is we are saved by Christ's death on the cross not by what we inconsistently teach , it doesn't really matter if one is inconsistent as long as you are not consistently teaching heresy. Anyway, that's my two cents.
no the reason why he became a neo-orthodoxy is after he became a pastor in the swiss. From this, we can see that ministry is indispensable in theology.
I don't think that you know the actual history of Karl Barth. Many Evangelicals have not read his biography or his actual works. Many quote him and judge him based on the secondary reading or short articles. His historical significance has been that he, a product of liberal theological education, saw its danger and fallacy after his first year of his pastoral life in Safenweil. I recommend a biography by Mark Galli (short but good) or by Eberhard Busch (long but through). I hope that you find a true biblical Christianity through KB.
Oh isn't she pretty. God bless her and her mind and work and rest, and keep her soul in perfect peace, and keep her away from the usual things intelligent Christians struggle with. God multiply blessings on her and continue to keep her close to him, that she may continue to grow in love, and faith, and hope. And adding knowledge to these, and learn how to know in love. Please Father for your Son's sake. Amen.
God's yes in Barth's theology can and is overcome by man's no most of the time. Barth understood that there are very few christians. Unlike Calvin, Barth taught that grace is not only resistible but it is often and frequently resisted and Christ is rejected Everybody is included, until they are excluded, very few are included in the end, and this is because man excludes himself through unbelief. Barth was clear that the the reconciliation of the entire human race had meaning solely to the Church and those that believed, this reconciliation was irrelevant to the unbeliever that is perishing. From reading his dogmatics it is crystal clear that Barth was not a universalist, God loved the world in Jesus Christ, but the world did not love God except for the few that believe and in this sense Barth was really orthodox, or put it in another way neo orthodoxy and orthodoxy agree that the vast majority of men are lost and without hope.
Bill k Mans yes and no are both of God . A mans no to God is based upon his own perception of what God is to which Barth calls ( the no God ). Election and rejection both take place in christ . Thats the cross and the paradox.
@@atroutflycrazy8057 I actually agree with Barth. His theology although an innovation is in my view biblical, for the most part, there are some things that I don't agree. But certainly I agree with Barth's explanation of an unlimited atonement. Also that election and rejection both take place in Christ. There was a verdict at the cross where God said yes to man. But man says no to the verdict and perishes, that is the most important thing, that very few men accept what God did at Calvary. And for those men what happened at Calvary is irrelevant (either because they never heard of it or because they heard it and rejected it), and they perish in ignorance, because they are unaware of God's grace. So Barth is very orthodox, and teaches the narrow way that Christ taught, for broad is the way that leads to destruction. Barth, Luther, Calvin, they all teach that the vast majority of the human race ends up in hell. There is no difference on this.
@@billk8874 Faith is the gift and miracle of God its not of self. Yes the way is narrow and there be few that find it ?. How its read literally and what it means spiritually arent the same. Whats ment is none can truly find it . Christ is the way and only in him are you on the narrow way. Narrow only because its so opposite to the world we are born into (broad way /mans natural way ).
@@atroutflycrazy8057 I agree, very few find Christ, or very few are found by Christ, i.e. very few come to faith and very few are in Christ. I believe Barth's gospel presentation to be one of the best, maybe second to Luther.. But it does not matter how we slice it, Barth was clear that Christ has only meaning for Christians, the very few that believe in HIm, even though in Christ man is elected and this election is irrevocable from God's point of view, it still demands faith without which we we are completely lost, and only those that are in Christ, i.e. Christians have life. Even though objectively the entire human race has eternal life in Jesus Christ, this eternal life is possessed solely by Jesus, and we have access to it through faith alone. Barth was very similar to Luther, more than he wants to admit.
@@billk8874 The subject of faith ,having faith and what that involves is a whole other subject but its very interesting to discuss with you on the subject of karl barth a truly gifted theologian.
I've had the pleasure of taking courses taught by two Barthian scholars---Dr. Paul Molnar (Trinitarian Christology) and Dr. David Haddorff (Christian Ethics)---at St. John's University in New York, so finding this video was a treat. Although I don't identify myself as Barthian, I do admire the breadth and depth of his work. His emphasis on divine freedom---God being God, over and against anthropocentric constructs---is one I find especially appealing.
Karl Barth was a very courageous man and applied the theology in real life also. While the multude of believers kept quite and tolerating the injustice happening in front of them he stood like a Ubermench
The world and particularly the christendom needs such people to carry forward the spirit of the Gospel
across the world.
The irony of using the fascist and explicitly antiChristian concept of Übermensch when celebrating Barth's fidelity to the gospel against the Nazis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch
Barth was in debt to Kierkegaard; indeed everybody speaks about Barth´s dogmatics but this is rare that somebody having read all volumes!
Yes. Jesus is the highest there no other above, behind, Sinner doesn't have to be worry, God is compassion.Amen.I agree. As being Ph.D Student
I watched a guy preaching very recently and he portrayed Jesus as returning to judge and punish sinners most severely and harshly with wrath and vengeance because they hadn't accepted him as their saviour .
"A product of his time..." That is such a condescending statement. He was a brilliant mind that reasoned things to such an end that his works are still valued. You can't just dismiss him as being so simply influenced when you disagree with him. It just doesn't work.
she wasn't referring to any of his theological theories, but rather that he evidently absorbed societies perspective on women at the time, views which are now outdated, and thus he is a product of his time. She wasn't saying it to be condescending, but rather excuse his evidently sexist remarks
@@fictionfatale3913 I agree with Tim. I don't see why a opinion we disagree with ( regardless of its nature or essence) should be considered as a "product of his time" and opinions we agree with are seen as very courageous and good.
Especially since we can see that he stood up against Hitler, it seems to me that he wasn't to much concerned about the mainstream in his time.
Hey Cambria: What are you doing your research on? Wish I could go to princeton - instead I'm stuck in Australia!
If it is possible for a man to stab Christ in the heart with his pen, and yet to shed more ink than blood, surely Barth is that man.
Thank you.
Karl Barth, one of the greatest thinkers of "EUROPEAN" Christendom. The worldview of the Messiah is, for sure, much older and larger than "EUROPEAN" Christendom!
I don't know about this qualification that you're trying to make. What does it matter that Barth was a European? Who else in the world is asking the same questions and trying to get at the same truths? This is what is important about Barth, or Kierkegaard, or someone not of a European background, such as the Catholic Cardinal Robert Sarah. "Qui Est Veritas?", as Pilate asked Christ, "What is Truth?". Truth is the point, and that is all that should matter about the work of a given person.
Recently saw Steven Crowder apply dialectics to the problem of vessels of wrath Romans 9 - 11 . There wasn't that simple either or Calvinism evangelical judgement . He seems to be saying in the style of Barth - the damned are not necessarily going to hell . It's a nice thought especially for me !
Notice, they sufficed Barth entirely as they said nothing of substance outside of the words "Jesus Christ". Entirely subjective interpretations of "Jesus Christ" follow.
I summarize Barth's soteriology as Jesus is the premier Elect One and the only Elector. All are POTENTIALLY elect in Him.
Particularism is abhorrent in liberal ideology - therefore, Barth's project was an effort to avoid particularism while still trying to maintain some respect for the text, unlike the liberalism to which Barth was reacting. The fact that Barth nonetheless couldn't exegete these difficult texts on their face is certainly a fail.
Corrected?
On women's views?
If there are amendments. It will be flawed.
This started out so well talking about Christ but just went downhill after that.
This is the once great Princeton?? What does he mean by “fundamentalism” having “hindered” Christianity? I hope he’s not talking about the warriors of the faith before him like BB Warfield.
And what of Barth’s supposed unrepentant immoral life, or his apparent universalism?
I have no academic background in theology, and much to my regret I only discovered Benjamin Warfield, not to mention John Calvin and the Puritans, in my fifties. I am now 70, a child of the foolish 1960s. The rest of my dire generation are into Yoga and Mindfulness.
Barth said he could spend the rest of his life reading Calvin, and I feel sad I never read Calvin's Bible Commentaries until so late in life.
A late wisdom is better than none. Jonathan Edwards is another late discovery and John Owen the English Calvin and A.W. Pink.
@@jackjohnhameld6401 I'm in my 50's right now and just discovering all of this! Better late than never - the Lord can and does work all things for the good, including a wasted youth.
4:25 This young lady needs to be told to shake off her modernist attitudes and to consider the truth of Barth's arguments. Her personal feelings are irrelevant about what Barth argued about the roles of men and women - is Barth right? That's all that matters. Answering this question can help one get around the rot inflicted on one's mind from this atrocious society of ours.
Regardless of his scholarly insight, he seems to of had an addiction to pipe smoking. Perhaps that was one area of the flesh he wasn't willing to give up.
Who cares? Like seriously, everyone smoked back then.
Yea y'all should be way more concerned about his long-standing unrepentant adultery.
Karl Barth was inconsistent, I have read a few articles on him. From what I know he was influenced by a liberal professor but the good thing was later on in life he went to a solid and sound theological seminary, to unlearn the liberalism in his theology. So in the end it kind of explains why he made liberal statements but then again said the complete opposite like believed God's Word was inspired but had mistakes. Do I believe he was saved? I don't know hard to say, but the good news is we are saved by Christ's death on the cross not by what we inconsistently teach , it doesn't really matter if one is inconsistent as long as you are not consistently teaching heresy. Anyway, that's my two cents.
no the reason why he became a neo-orthodoxy is after he became a pastor in the swiss. From this, we can see that ministry is indispensable in theology.
I don't think that you know the actual history of Karl Barth. Many Evangelicals have not read his biography or his actual works. Many quote him and judge him based on the secondary reading or short articles. His historical significance has been that he, a product of liberal theological education, saw its danger and fallacy after his first year of his pastoral life in Safenweil. I recommend a biography by Mark Galli (short but good) or by Eberhard Busch (long but through). I hope that you find a true biblical Christianity through KB.
This is just theology
Oh isn't she pretty. God bless her and her mind and work and rest, and keep her soul in perfect peace, and keep her away from the usual things intelligent Christians struggle with. God multiply blessings on her and continue to keep her close to him, that she may continue to grow in love, and faith, and hope. And adding knowledge to these, and learn how to know in love. Please Father for your Son's sake. Amen.
Amen to this prayer.
God's yes in Barth's theology can and is overcome by man's no most of the time. Barth understood that there are very few christians. Unlike Calvin, Barth taught that grace is not only resistible but it is often and frequently resisted and Christ is rejected Everybody is included, until they are excluded, very few are included in the end, and this is because man excludes himself through unbelief. Barth was clear that the the reconciliation of the entire human race had meaning solely to the Church and those that believed, this reconciliation was irrelevant to the unbeliever that is perishing. From reading his dogmatics it is crystal clear that Barth was not a universalist, God loved the world in Jesus Christ, but the world did not love God except for the few that believe and in this sense Barth was really orthodox, or put it in another way neo orthodoxy and orthodoxy agree that the vast majority of men are lost and without hope.
Bill k
Mans yes and no are both of God .
A mans no to God is based upon his own perception of what God is to which Barth calls ( the no God ).
Election and rejection both take place in christ .
Thats the cross and the paradox.
@@atroutflycrazy8057 I actually agree with Barth. His theology although an innovation is in my view biblical, for the most part, there are some things that I don't agree. But certainly I agree with Barth's explanation of an unlimited atonement. Also that election and rejection both take place in Christ. There was a verdict at the cross where God said yes to man. But man says no to the verdict and perishes, that is the most important thing, that very few men accept what God did at Calvary. And for those men what happened at Calvary is irrelevant (either because they never heard of it or because they heard it and rejected it), and they perish in ignorance, because they are unaware of God's grace. So Barth is very orthodox, and teaches the narrow way that Christ taught, for broad is the way that leads to destruction. Barth, Luther, Calvin, they all teach that the vast majority of the human race ends up in hell. There is no difference on this.
@@billk8874
Faith is the gift and miracle of God its not of self.
Yes the way is narrow and there be few that find it ?. How its read literally and what it means spiritually arent the same.
Whats ment is none can truly find it .
Christ is the way and only in him are you on the narrow way.
Narrow only because its so opposite to the world we are born into (broad way /mans natural way ).
@@atroutflycrazy8057 I agree, very few find Christ, or very few are found by Christ, i.e. very few come to faith and very few are in Christ. I believe Barth's gospel presentation to be one of the best, maybe second to Luther.. But it does not matter how we slice it, Barth was clear that Christ has only meaning for Christians, the very few that believe in HIm, even though in Christ man is elected and this election is irrevocable from God's point of view, it still demands faith without which we we are completely lost, and only those that are in Christ, i.e. Christians have life. Even though objectively the entire human race has eternal life in Jesus Christ, this eternal life is possessed solely by Jesus, and we have access to it through faith alone. Barth was very similar to Luther, more than he wants to admit.
@@billk8874
The subject of faith ,having faith and what that involves is a whole other subject but its very interesting to discuss with you on the subject of karl barth a truly gifted theologian.