Response to Barth
I'd like to thank whoever it was that left the anonymous comment on my Karl Barth post. Not only do I appreciate the critique, I'm just glad to see that at least a few people are reading the blog. I'd like to respond to some of the concerns that were expressed in that comment regarding my rendering of Barth's view on general revelation. As far as his view of Scripture goes, I'll simply stand corrected for the time being, at least until I have a better grasp on Barth's position. I admit, I am finding it rather hard to pin down exactly. In light of this, my comments on the subject should probably have been more reserved in the first place. For now, I'll simply respond to the second objection.
As for natural and philosophical speculations about God, that is a development of a very Reformed way of thinking. Barth is protecting against the idea that we can reach God by means of our own inherent capabilities in any way whatsoever. He wants to preserve the notion that it is God and God alone who reveals himself to us and makes himself known through his revelation--and that we cannot achieve any knowledge of God on our own apart from that revelation. To put it another way: he's making sure God is put in the position of revealing who God is, not man. That seems right to me. We can't get to God naturally or by our own philosophizing--only God teaches us about God through his revelation in Christ, the scriptures, and the proclaimed word. It's hard to see much wrong with that.
I would agree with Barth's view as you have set it forth on this point. The only knowledge that man can have of God is that which God chooses to reveal of Himself. The question is, what kind of knowledge does he reveal? Barth would say (I believe) that the only knowledge we can truly have of God is what is revealed in the man Jesus Christ. I would agree that revelation of who God is and what he truly is like can only come from Christ, and that the knowledge that accompanies salvation must be that of Christ. However, this is not the only place that God has revealed Himself, at least in some measure. According to the Reformed tradition, all men do have some knowledge of God if only from what they see in nature or from the testimony of their conscience. This is not enough to bring anyone to a saving knowledge, of course, but it is the general revelation that God gives to all men. As you have said, "only God teaches us about God throughout his revelation in Christ, the scriptures, and the proclaimed word." These are the only means that He uses to reveal his saving purposes, but he also reveals himself in his creation. The knowledge that can be gained from this type of revelation is obviously not enough to relate the saving nature of God's work, but it is enough basic knowledge of God to condemn man for rejecting Him.
I realize that Barth formulated this view in the light of natural theology movements that attempted to develop a full full-orbed theology on the basis of what all men can affirm about God. With respect to challenges such as this his response was no doubt a much needed defense of the need for a specific revelation of the life and work of Jesus Christ. However, I believe that the account that he put forth is flawed. This flaw manifests itself in his outright rejection of the task of apologetics, a responsibility which is not only set forth clearly in the New Testament, but one that has also been a priority of the Church from its very beginning.
Again, I thankful or the comments that have been offered and hope that my response is clear and that there is some merit found in it. Hopefully whoever left the comment will stop by the blog again and offer anymore thoughts they may have.
As for natural and philosophical speculations about God, that is a development of a very Reformed way of thinking. Barth is protecting against the idea that we can reach God by means of our own inherent capabilities in any way whatsoever. He wants to preserve the notion that it is God and God alone who reveals himself to us and makes himself known through his revelation--and that we cannot achieve any knowledge of God on our own apart from that revelation. To put it another way: he's making sure God is put in the position of revealing who God is, not man. That seems right to me. We can't get to God naturally or by our own philosophizing--only God teaches us about God through his revelation in Christ, the scriptures, and the proclaimed word. It's hard to see much wrong with that.
I would agree with Barth's view as you have set it forth on this point. The only knowledge that man can have of God is that which God chooses to reveal of Himself. The question is, what kind of knowledge does he reveal? Barth would say (I believe) that the only knowledge we can truly have of God is what is revealed in the man Jesus Christ. I would agree that revelation of who God is and what he truly is like can only come from Christ, and that the knowledge that accompanies salvation must be that of Christ. However, this is not the only place that God has revealed Himself, at least in some measure. According to the Reformed tradition, all men do have some knowledge of God if only from what they see in nature or from the testimony of their conscience. This is not enough to bring anyone to a saving knowledge, of course, but it is the general revelation that God gives to all men. As you have said, "only God teaches us about God throughout his revelation in Christ, the scriptures, and the proclaimed word." These are the only means that He uses to reveal his saving purposes, but he also reveals himself in his creation. The knowledge that can be gained from this type of revelation is obviously not enough to relate the saving nature of God's work, but it is enough basic knowledge of God to condemn man for rejecting Him.
I realize that Barth formulated this view in the light of natural theology movements that attempted to develop a full full-orbed theology on the basis of what all men can affirm about God. With respect to challenges such as this his response was no doubt a much needed defense of the need for a specific revelation of the life and work of Jesus Christ. However, I believe that the account that he put forth is flawed. This flaw manifests itself in his outright rejection of the task of apologetics, a responsibility which is not only set forth clearly in the New Testament, but one that has also been a priority of the Church from its very beginning.
Again, I thankful or the comments that have been offered and hope that my response is clear and that there is some merit found in it. Hopefully whoever left the comment will stop by the blog again and offer anymore thoughts they may have.
posted by Andrew Stout | 1:37 PM
1 Comments:
However, I believe that the account that he put forth is flawed. This flaw manifests itself in his outright rejection of the task of apologetics, a responsibility which is not only set forth clearly in the New Testament, but one that has also been a priority of the Church from its very beginning.
Hi Andrew, I don't have a blogger account, so that's why I was anonymous. I'm Chris. I wrote my comment quickly in a "hit and run," so I hope it didn't sound too snipey or anything. I'm honestly impressed about the way your approach things here--fairly and not polemically. That kind of spirit is becoming increasingly rare among those who share the Reformed heritage. I'm also glad you're reading Barth (who is by far the theologian who has made me grow in my faith the most) and are thinking seriously about what he has to say--regardless of whether or not you agree with him at the end of the day.
As for the quote above, I'm not sure Barth would see apologetics as one of the primary responsibilities of the church. That's not to say, however, that he thinks we shouldn't communicate our faith to the world. He just sees that task differently.
He'd say that the church's primary task is to witness--just to point to Jesus. His favorite painting was a famous one where John the Baptist is pointing to the crucified Jesus, and it made precisely that point: the most important thing we can do is to simply point people and direct them to Christ, who will prove himself. Barth believed that God has provided the means of his own revelation, and that he doesn't need us to "prove" him to anyway. That doesn't mean that we don't defend the faith from falsehood or point out errors that we see, but it also doesn't mean that we need proofs to justify God. God justifies himself.
You were right about this being a response to natural theology. His worry on this end was that when we tried to get into justifications (like those from a natural theology or from philosophy) we inevitably start playing the other team's game--we go off the ground of revelation (the only way we can truly know God's identity) and go onto the ground of human reason. Barth always wants to preserve revelation (and specifically Christ) as the only way we ever know the true identity of God.
If you've read much Calvin, you'll see pretty quickly that Barth is going a little beyond Calvin here, but not by much. Calvin believed that scripture was self-authenticating, and while he accepted natural revelation, he never accepted a natural theology (there's a difference). Barth is staying consistent on the point where Calvin finally comes down--that God's revelation is the ultimate source of knowledge of God. He just draws the line a little further in than Calvin, and he doesn't equate revelation so exclusively with the Bible (he sees it as the living Word, the written Word, and the preached Word).
Anyway: Barth doesn't want to deny the church's need to share Christ with the world--he definitely thinks that is important. He just goes about it a different way than most apologists do. He's trying to keep the church on it's own ground!
If you want more Barth, I recommend his little book, "Dogmatics in Outline", which you can pick up pretty cheaply. It gives a good overview of his thought in a fairly brief and readable fashion.
Thanks for letting me jump in,
Chris
Post a Comment
<< Home