Judy, Bill has correctly cast the shadow -- you believe
that you are one of the few who is not doing theology
!!! Barth's reverence and
high regard for faith as the "x" factor that brings all The Faith together is
the most startling concept presenting itself as one reads Barth for the first
time (that would be me). There is simply nothing that has
been presented on TT
that evidences Barth as a "liberal." In
fact, he specifically opposed the liberal theology of the
day, using that very word in his criticism.
To simply argue whether Barth is this or that is - like Bill
- not of interest to me. But, if a quotation is taken
out of context and this gives me the opportunity to read what I have not read
before, then I intend to share that with TT. Or personal reading as per this
mornings reading and sharing. Barth's theology of the continuance of scripture (i.e. the
Bible) is perfectly in line with Jere 31:
33-34.
What you have done with your brand of theology, is to fashion an argument
(that the Holy Spirit inspires your mind as you read the scriptures) that
cannot be wrong and must be accepted if unity is to be
accomplished. If enough of you could grab the power that is
intrinsic in Church leadership, we would have ex-cathedra of the Church rather than liberty in the spirit.
-- Judy style.
God does not need the gymnastics of your theology to make clear what it
is that we are to believe. He would have simply said (God
speaking ex-cathedra !!) believe
this and do not believe that - the impact of this doctrine is this
and you are hell bound if you believe that. He spoke that way in
Torah - why not now?
Evangelicals know that their doctrine
of verbal/plenary only effects the original documents. We do not
have those documents, of course, so now what ?? !! We are left
with Barth's notion - a very
conservative effort at dealing with the problem without delving into
mythology - and his assertion that the living God
providentially supervises (or whatever word you desire) not only the
preservation of holy scripture but the reading and understanding of same as
the text is visit AND REVISITED by the disciple and the larger
church. No point revisiting scripture if you can get it right the
first time, right Judy? And "getting it right" has much more to do with
the maturity of the disciple than "getting it right," I hasten to
add.
New Testament scriptures have been given to us and continue to be
the Living Word of God, in part, because of God's continuing association with
them. They are worthless if not found in your hands and
heart...........................which reality validates Barth's assertion of divine accompaniment in the first
visit and the revisiting of scripture. I have no reason to
consider Gal 3:26, 27 again, for example, if this revisiting of the text
does not provide me the opportunity to hear the voice of the Living God work
in my heart as I consider the biblical message, yet, again.
jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
[email protected]Cc:
[email protected]Sent: Sun, 4
Dec 2005 09:32:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] One of the "greatest
voices"
JD why do you
think Barth is correct?
Have you ever asked yourself why a God who promised
through the prophet Jeremiah 2631yrs ago and later through the prophet Ezekiel
2602yrs ago that He would make a New Covenant with His ppl and that this New Covenant would include writing His Law
in their inward parts so that they would not need a man to teach them because
they would all know Him which promise was
again validated sometime before 70 AD in the book of
Hebrews?
Makes no common sense or any other kind of
sense to me in light of the above - (along with the Promise of the Holy
Spirit sent on the day of Pentecost to lead us into ALL truth) -
that He (the Omniscient God of the Universe) would find out later that
He also needed a German theologian (who has been dead 37yrs) and
his four volume Dogmatic (involving more than
9,000 pages) to unfold the Word He has already placed in the hearts of Believers.
There is something wrong with this picture...
judyt
This is a very good understanding, in small part, to what I see
in Barth - and I think Barth is correct:
From 1932 to 1967 he (Barth) worked on his Church
Dogmatics, a multivolume work that
was unfinished at his death. It consists of 13 parts in four volumes,
running altogether to more than 9,000 pages. Although he
changed some of his early positions, he continued to maintain that the task of theology is to unfold the revealed word attested
in the Bible, and that there is no place for natural theology or the
influence of non-Christian religions. His theology depended on a distinction
between the Word (i.e., God's self-revelation as concretely manifested in
Christ) and religion.
Bill writes: "It will take many years,
I'm sure, before Barth will be allowed to speak for himself to the
conservative community. In the meantime Evangelical Christians will be
missing out on one of the greatest
voices the Church has ever known.
I'm curious about what you find so great
Bill... What does Barth say in the more than 9,000 pages of his
Dogmatic that we can not learn through the grace and mercy of God from
His Own Word? Was Barth inspired or misguided in his belief that
the "task of theology is to unfold the revealed word attested in the Bible"
when Jesus' own Words teach us that this is the work of the Holy Spirit in
the lives of those who believe and follow Him?
The very size of the Dogmatics.
Mascall said that it takes
so much time to read this theologian of the word that no
time is left to read the Word itself. His (Barth's) style is majestic, and difficult.
From 1932 to 1967 he (Barth) worked on his Church
Dogmatics, a multivolume work that
was unfinished at his death. It consists of 13 parts in four volumes,
running altogether to more than 9,000 pages.
Although he changed some of his early positions, he continued to maintain
that the task of theology is to unfold the revealed word
attested in the Bible, and that there is no place for natural
theology or the influence of non-Christian religions. His theology depended
on a distinction between the Word (i.e., God's self-revelation as concretely
manifested in Christ) and religion.
judyt &
nbsp; &
nbsp;
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
