Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth

[Judy Taylor]

JD, I have not and do not intend to read Karl Barth but I see from what you write that you look up to and respect him as a man of God.  I'm just wondering what, (other than confusion) could come from his writings?   Because to me it sounds like Barth exalts the "human" and follows his own private "revelation" - or does Wikipedia have it wrong?   judyt   Wikipedia states the following about Karl Barth: Barth's theology assumes a certain amount of the tenets of liberal Christianity, most notably the assumption that the Bible is not historically and scientifically accurate. Barth has been called by fundamentalist Christianity a "neo-Orthodox" because, while his theology retains most or all of the tenets of Christianity, he rejects Biblical inerrancy. His reconciliation of having a rigorous Christian theology without a supporting text that was considered to be historically accurate was to separate theological truth from historical truth. It is arguably for this belief that Barth has been criticized the most harshly by more conservative Christians such as the late Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer. The relationship between Barth, liberalism and fundamentalism goes far beyond the issue of inerrancy. From Barth's perspective, liberalism (with Schleiermacher and Hegel as its leading exponents) is the divinization of human thinking. Some philosophical concepts become the false God, and the voice of the living God is blocked. This leads to the captivity of theology by human ideology. In Barth's theology, he emphasizes again and again that human concepts can never be considered as identical to God's revelation. In this aspect, Scripture is also written human language, expressing human concepts. It cannot be considered as identical as God's revelation. However, in His freedom and love, God truly reveals the Godself through human language and concepts. Thus he claims that Christ is truly presented in Scripture and the preaching of the church. Barth stands in the heritage of the Reformation in his weariness of the marriage between theology and philosophy. Whether his sharp distinction between human concepts and divine revelation is biblical or philosophically sound remains debatable.