Intelligent design comments

The End of Intelligent Design?

Feb 9, 2010

Stephen M. Barr

It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle.

Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments. These arguments not only have failed to persuade, they have done positive harm by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science.

The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science. To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations. But the ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere. Nothing could be better calculated to provoke the antagonism of the scientific community. This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID.

The older (and wiser) form of the design argument for the existence of God—one found implicitly in Scripture and in many early Christian writings—did not point to the naturally inexplicable or to effects outside the course of nature, but to nature itself and its ordinary operations—operations whose “power and working” were seen as reflecting the power and wisdom of God. The following passage from the Book of Wisdom is essentially a design argument addressed, circa 100 b.c. to those impressed by ancient Greek science:

For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works; but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world. If through delight in the beauty of these things people assumed them to be gods, let them know how much better than these is their Lord, for the author of beauty created them. And if people were amazed at their power and working, let them perceive from them how much more powerful is the one who formed them. For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. Yet these people are little to be blamed, for perhaps they go astray while seeking God and desiring to find him. For while they live among his works, they keep searching, and they trust in what they see, because the things that are seen are beautiful. Yet again, not even they are to be excused; for if they had the power to know so much that they could investigate the world, how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things? (Wisd. 13:1–9)

These words are prophetically relevant to those today who investigate the world but fail to find its author. Note that the evidence of the creator to which this passage points consists of phenomena that even ID proponents would agree have good scientific explanations: “fire,” “wind,” “swift air,” “the circle of the stars,” “turbulent water,” and “luminaries of heaven.” The Letter of Clement (circa a.d. 97), one of the oldest surviving Christian documents outside the New Testament, speaks of God’s “ordering of His whole creation” by pointing, again, to natural phenomena:

The heavens, as they revolve beneath His government, do so in quiet submission to Him. The day and the night run the course He has laid down for them, and neither of them interferes with the other. Sun, moon, and the starry choirs roll on in harmony at His command, none swerving from his appointed orbit. Season by season the teeming earth, obedient to His will, causes a wealth of nourishment to spring forth for man and beast and every living thing upon its surface, making no demur and no attempt to alter even the least of His decrees. Laws of the same kind sustain the fathomless deeps of the abyss and the untold regions of the netherworld. Nor does the illimitable basin of the sea, gathered by the operations of His hand into its various different centers, overflow at any time the barriers encircling it, but does as He has bidden it. . . . The impassable Ocean and all the worlds that lie beyond it are themselves ruled by the like ordinances of the Lord. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter succeed one another peaceably; the winds fulfill their punctual duties, each from its own quarter, and give no offence; the ever-flowing streams created for our well-being and enjoyment offer their breasts unfailingly for the life of man; and even the minutest of living creatures mingle together in peaceful accord. Upon all of these the great Architect and Lord of the universe has enjoined peace and harmony.

The emphasis in early Christian writings was not on complexity, irreducible or otherwise, but on the beauty, order, lawfulness, and harmony found in the world that God had made. As science advances, it brings this beautiful order ever more clearly into view. Every photograph from the Hubble Space Telescope, every picture from the ocean’s depths, every discovery in subatomic physics, shows it forth. As Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “God [has] manifested himself in the formation of every part of the world, and daily presents himself to public view, in such manner, that they cannot open their eyes without being constrained to behold him.” And, “[W]ithersoever you turn your eyes, there is not an atom of the world in which you cannot behold some brilliant sparks at least of his glory. . . . You cannot at one view take a survey of this most ample and beautiful machine [the universe] in all its vast extent, without being completely overwhelmed with its infinite splendor” [emphasis mine]. Note that “atoms of the world” are not irreducibly complex, nor is “every part of the world.” Irreducible complexity has never been the central principle of traditional natural theology.

But whereas the advance of science continually strengthens the broader and more traditional version of the design argument, the ID movement’s version is hostage to every advance in biological science. Science must fail for ID to succeed. In the famous “explanatory filter” of William A. Dembski, one finds “design” by eliminating “law” and “chance” as explanations. This, in effect, makes it a zero-sum game between God and nature. What nature does and science can explain is crossed off the list, and what remains is the evidence for God. This conception of design plays right into the hands of atheists, whose caricature of religion has always been that it is a substitute for the scientific understanding of nature.

The ID movement has also rubbed a very raw wound in the relation between science and religion. For decades scientists have had to fend off the attempts by Young Earth creationists to promote their ideas as a valid alternative science. The scientific world’s exasperation with creationists is understandable. Imagine yourself a serious historian in a country where half the population believed in Afrocentric history, say, or a serious political scientist in a country where half the people believed that the world is run by the Bilderberg Group or the Rockefellers. It would get to you after a while, especially if there were constant attempts to insert these alternative theories into textbooks. So, when the ID movement came along and suggested that its ideas be taught in science classrooms, it touched a nerve. This is one reason that the New Atheists attracted such a huge audience.

None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong. Nor is it to deny that the ID movement has been treated atrociously and that it has been lied about by many scientists. The question I am raising is whether this quixotic attempt by a small and lightly armed band to overthrow “Darwinism” and bring about a new scientific revolution has accomplished anything good. It has had no effect on scientific thought. Its main consequence has been to strengthen the general perception that science and religion are at war.

Cui bono? Only those people whose religious doctrines entail either Young Earth creationism or a rejection of common descent. Such people already and necessarily were in a state of war with modern science and have no choice but to fight that war to the bitter end. Many of them see in the ID movement a useful ally in that war (as the Dover trial illustrated), despite the fact that the ID movement does not deny common descent or the age of the earth. Other religious people, however, have nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by the ID movement’s frontal assault on well-defended redoubts of modern science—an assault that has come to resemble the Charge of the Light Brigade.

I suspect that some religious people have embraced the ID movement’s arguments because they want “scientific” answers to the scientific atheists, and they know of no others. But there are plenty of ways to make a case for the reasonableness of religious belief that can be persuasive to many in the scientific world. Such a case has been made by a growing number of research scientists who are Christian believers, such as John Polkinghorne, Owen Gingerich, Francis Collins, Peter E. Hodgson, Michal Heller, Kenneth R. Miller, and Marco Bersanelli. I have addressed many audiences myself using arguments similar to theirs and have had scientists whom I know to be of firm atheist convictions tell me that they came away with more respect for the religious position. Religion has a significant number of friends (and potential friends) in the scientific world. The ID movement is not creating new ones.

Stephen M. Barr is professor of physics at the University of Delaware and author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith and A Student’s Guide to Natural Science.

Source site: First Things

That was then, this is now/ Barman in 1934 and Mahattan in 2008

Barth had his Barman Declaration.

The Barman Declaration was actually the lone work of Karl Barth. A few sips of wine and a good cigar or three, and all fell asleep except the great pastor. They were to meet back in his room to compare and rewrite. Instead, they could only wake from thier afternoon nap(s) ratify the wording of brother B.

Jesus Christ is both human and divine

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one accord,
teach people to confess one and the same Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ,
at once complete in Godhead and complete in humanity,
truly God and truly human,
consisting of a rational soul and body;

of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead,
and at the same time of one substance with us
as regards his humanity;
like us in all respects, apart from sin;

as regards his Godhead,
begotten of the Father before the ages,
but yet as regards his humanity begotten,
for us and for our salvation,
of Mary the Virgin, the Theotokos [God-Bearer];

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change,
without division, without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved
and coming together to form one person and subsistence,
not as parted or separated into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God, the Word,
the Lord Jesus Christ;

even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him,
and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us,
and the creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

That was then, this (below) is now.

And now, under an equally repressive political system, we have this. The characters are not nearly as note worthy as was Barth, but the Manhattan Declaration may be as profound a document as was the Barman Declaration. Both represent a "line in the sand," words of caution directed to the leaders of their repective worlds.

The Manhattan Declaration

A Call of Christian Conscience

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life

Pass this on - we have made it easy to e-mail.

For a full text of the Manhattan Declaration, click on this.
'

The "Heretic" Mark Devine, Karl Barth and "Neo-Orthodoxy

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/mark-devine-on-karl-barth

In 2001, Southern Seminary Ph.d and Midwestern Seminary theology professor Mark Devine delivered a paper to ETS on evangelicals and Karl Barth. The article is found here, or in pdf from the same site.

At the Fide-o watchblog, I’ve been accused of being a liberal heretic like Karl Barth. Among the comments from Scott Hill and Jason Robertson:

“That post was riddled with Barthian Neo-orthodoxy which last time I checked was considered heresy.”

“But in the end, his bibliology is classically liberal in the stream of Barth…”

“I too believe that we should “draw a circle” around those who assert their unorthodox opinions as sound biblical theology == and that happens to be guys like you…. and by the way, guys like Karl Barth…”

“For example, his bibliology is Barthian. Barth was loved by the fundamentalists and conservatives… on everything except his bibliology.” (I still have no idea what bibliology is.)

Here I want to address what has become perhaps the most common criticism not so much of Barth, but of neo-orthodoxy, with which Barth tends to be identified. I believe that the term neo-orthodoxy is misleading and virtually useless in comprehending the theology of Karl Barth. In any case, it is often noted that neo-orthodox theologians contend that the revelation of God or the Word of God cannot be identified with Scripture but that the Word or revelation can be found within the scriptures. This view applies to true Protestant Liberals but not to Barth. There is no higher-critical separation of the gospel kernel from the mythological husk in Barth as one finds in the writings of Adolph Von Harnack and Rudolf Bultmann. Barth stands under the Scriptures not beside or above them as the higher critics tended to do. In fact, Barth’s aversion to the pretentions of the higher critics becomes obvious in his decades long correspondence with Bultmann. What is true is that Barth distinguished between the Bible as a human book susceptible to historical investigation and interpretation and the revelation of God itself which the Bible may become according to the working of the Holy Spirit. What did Barth mean by this? What he did not mean is that the Biblical witness depends upon either the internal witness of the Holy Spirit or its reception by man to become true. What he did mean was that genuine understanding of the word of God, genuine reception of the revelation of God always involves “profitable” understanding, or “salvifically efficacious” understanding. Like Calvin before him, when the words only touches the brain, understanding has not been achieved. Only those who encounter salvifically the One to whom the scriptures bear witness can be said to have benefited from revelation. Barth’s conviction that God’s sovereignty extends to knowledge of himself caused him to draw back from statements about the Bible which suggested general access to the revelation God. Ironically, similar concerns related to God’s sovereignty and freedom led Barth to oppose liberal and higher critical views of scripture and inerrancy. For Barth, both views suggested a kind of exalted position of man above the Bible from which the former could deny its authority and the latter could prop it up. What inerrantists in America viewed as a necessary defense of Biblical authority involved, for Barth, an appeal to some imaginary external guarantee in order to secure what the Bible could not lose.

NT Wright and his hermeneutic - why Wright must be viewed with qualification

BT Says:
November 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pm

After looking at NT Wright for a couple of years it appears he has come under close scrutiny by Reformed theologians over the past several years in response to: (1) the growing popularity of his views among both Reformed and Evangelical pastors; (2) the debate about Federal Vision definitions of covenant theology and their use of Wright’s material to support their particular definitions; (3) the interests of Catholics and Evangelicals who would like to find a platform to bridge the gap between Catholics and Protestants and (4) the challenge of Wright to the traditional formulation over the doctrine of Justification, which to many, again confuses certain aspects of justification with sanctification (a point so forcefully argued during the Reformation by Calvin and Luther against Roman Catholicism which lead to a papal anathema against the Reformers).

In conjunction with the above points I also have a concern with an aspect of Wright’s hermeneutical method. As sometimes falsely accused, no one in Reformed circles, today or in the past, has denied that historical context or current culture and thinking of the Biblical writers is not important in understanding what the Biblical writers meant to say to us. However, in the past, Reformers placed the Biblical supposition that Scripture must interpret Scripture as the primary rule of interpretation (cf. Luke 24:24ff). Otherwise, without careful analysis anyone could cast a false “historical context” upon a text or book and steer it’s message down a totally different path. In Wright’s case, he has “dropped in a different historical context” based on studies of second temple Judaism into discussion around Paul’s writings (eg. Galatians particularly) and used it as the primarily rule for understanding the rest of Scripture. But historical discovery or understanding of any period is hardly infallible! To quote my first seminary history professor- “historians can do one thing God cannot – change history”! It is a much safer enterprise to compare the body of Biblical and Systematic theology as we compare the teaching of Scripture with Scripture – allowing it to “bring out the history” of the text through the text of Scripture itself. Certainly the historical background that we gather from extra-biblical research is important and should always be considered, but it should not be allowed to govern the doctrines or texts of Scripture when Scripture gives us a historical setting from it own pages. This might be thought of as one aspect of the sufficiency of Scripture. Otherwise, any text can be made to mean anything if the right pretext of history is “dropped down on it”

I will give one quick example (Wright likes to use stories and so do I). When in Chicago I was privileged to see the Broadway play “Wicked”. Oddly, it’s the retelling of the popular movie ‘The Wizard of Oz’. But to my surprise and amazement after I left the play in the final act I left the theater with a TOTALLY different understanding of each of the characters I was first introduced to in the ‘original’ movie. You leave wondering “how could I have been so wrong about everybody the first time”. The bad witch it turns out was a good witch. The good witch turns out to be a flake. The scarecrow (spoiler) ends up marrying the bad witch and lives happily ever after (after faking the bad witch’s death scene). And the Wizard to everyone’s surprise was an old unfaithful spouse whose behavior gave birth to a green daughter who would later be labeled as ‘wicked’ due to her oppression in childhood. But the amazing part was that after you left the theater the reinterpretation made perfect sense even in like of what you had learned from the ‘original’ movie. The historical backdrop to the story changed the way that I thought about each character and proved my initial impression entirely wrong. Why? because the play had masterfully ‘overlaid a historical context’ that justified a totally different reinterpretation of each character than what was presented in the ‘original’ movie. And of course this led to a totally different conclusion. Wright’s ’second temple Judaism’ brings that type of format or method into the discussion of Justification. The flaw in this method revolves around the primacy of his new historical context. In the end its’ primacy changes the original story over and against what you first believed. And while this in itself may not be bad it appears to be reinterpreting certain passages in a way that disagrees with other related passages of Scripture across the board. Another issue with extra biblical historical primacy is that we must first agree that Wright does (or can) know in detail exactly what a second temple Jew was thinking during the first century and how their false interpretation would impacted Paul and Jesus discussion. And who are these ‘collective’ second temple Jews? Did they all believe the same thing? Could there have been more than one erroneous belief about old covenant theology or differing factions among the orthodox as we have today? Could Jesus and Paul be addressing one faction, a division of a faction or beliefs of totally different sects (e.g. Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Gentiles, Jewish political militants, secular governments, etc.,)? Not everything in the NT concerning the gospel or justification is aimed at just one group. And many of the epistles were passed from church to church. It certainly is not that unnatural to think that they had as many factions as we have today on the topic of covenant theology and eschatology! This is why I believe it is going to take a two pronged approached to solve the debate. First, a through exegesis of the immediate contexts within the Biblical story supported by second, systematic formulation of doctrines that are harvested as we go along (allowing the texts to form and reform our understanding as each sheds more light on the other). Extra biblical data is useful but cannot be the controlling force behind all our interpretations.

Wright’s view of covenant membership in relationship to justification is very radical in comparison to doctrinal debates that have already ‘carved out of stone’ (and carved back into stone) the fundamentals of the gospel greek texts. Stone is reserved for long standing beliefs particularly after much agreement is reached after a mere millennium of debate. If Wright wants to take on a historical shift in thinking then he should expect nothing less than extreme examination (he writes at times as if he’s shocked that Evangelical or Reformed scholars question him). But this is exactly why his work deserves careful attention and scrutiny and why so many highly recognized evangelical and Reformed theologians are now critiquing him with ‘raised eyebrows’. If he’s right, then a lot of Christian hero’s have missed the boat and have led millions into an area of erroneous beliefs. And for some, these new systems of thought (in their mind) go so far as to corrupt the gospel.

I close with one final question. I often wonder in all this complex debate that if I found a Bible on a remote beach, or was just an average Joe (uneducated person without access to ancient Jewish history or a TH.M. in systematics), would I be able to rightly understand who Jesus really was or what justification really is? Are the Scriptures alone sufficient and clear enough to lead me to the real Christ or into membership in the real church? Or convince me that faith alone in Christ alone is the only way to vindicate my salvation and no works of merit can ever ‘get me in or keep me there’? St. Augustine said he heard the simple voice, -tolle lege’- “take up and read, take up and read”. Didn’t he find the grace of God which is “nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness” on which to stand? Is it really that simple?

Source: http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/a-short-note-on-n-t-wright-his-reformed-critics

Wright -- Contrast and Weakness from a Barthian point of view

The teaching that is the "New Perspectives of Paul" denies the accountability and scholarship of hundreds and hundreds of individuals involved in the translation of the ancient documents; these theologians, representing “orthodox” scholarship for hundreds of years, are viewed as being fundamentally off course while Sanders, Dunn and Wright see things correctly. .

When it is all said and Dunn (pardon the pun), EVERYONE has gotten it wrong with regards to the original meanings of "gospel," "justification," "righteousness," and the general themes of new covenant concepts such as faith/works, the Lordship of Christ, salvation and "personal" salvation, the corporate body, the mission of the church and the notion that the mission is exclusively charged to the church, stewardship, personal empowerment, personal experience(s), perfectionism, merited membership, free and continuing grace. This differing of opinions even extends to certain historically accepted grammatical/syntactical constructs, effecting specific exegetical conclusions (i.e., Philippians 2:12-13 references a corporate indwelling rather than a personal and individual indwelling or so is the claim of the scholars of NPP). In the end, the total effect is the creation of a Christian polemic that is not similar to anything taught in the present-day Christian Church. It is cultish in nature but without the membership requirements of a cult (all NPP adherents continue to worship in traditional “orthodox” churches). What is most appalling to this editor is the fact of its arrogance as a specific and overwhelming epistemology.

This editor has only read NT Wright and is not familiar with the works of Sanders and Dunn. What is tiresome in the reading of the Durham Bishop is the continual referencing of his exegetical abilities. When one realizes that this theologian summarily dismisses the work of Karl Barth, sets himself up against hundreds of years of orthodoxy, constantly makes the reader aware of his (Wright's) own exegetical abilities, and combines all this with the comprehensiveness of his theological departure, one realizes that "arrogance" scarcely catches the tone of this approach.

There was a time when I was an enthusiastic applicant to the "new perspectives." Fortunately, for me, my studies in Wright exactly paralleled my exposure to Barth. And, after two years of reading both men, it became obvious that the work of the two were not agreeable to one another . . . at all.

With the purchase and reading of several books written by NT Wright, it became obvious that Barth was being intentionally ignored while his theology was implicitly disputed.

The new perspectives of Barth with regard to his liberal and existential education as a college aged youth began to bloom with his reading of Paul, especially Paul's work in the Romans letter. During his collegiate years, Barth had never been required to study Paul. What he found in Paul was wonderful dialectic, a pronounced intellectual awareness and a committed since of surrender to a Living Christ. Barth saw in Paul, a theologian he could respect, one who had overcome his own since of bias in a quest to understand the King of the World as both God and the Christ of God. What was startling to the young pastor was the absence of existential thought and the overwhelming presence of a dialectic construct that demanded solution in - and only in - the mediation of the Living Word. Many of you will not understand what was just written, especially if you are new the theology of Karl Barth. To put it succinctly, allow me to say it this wise: Barth was impressed with the depth of Paul’s faith and the fact that it depended upon revelation from a Living Christ rather than an evolution of existential thought.

By contrast, Wright's awakening (outlined in What Saint Paul Really Said - WSPRS) came with the reading of the secularist Christian, Albert Schweitzer and the profoundly existential Rudolph Bultmann. While the good Bishop did not embrace their denial of miracles, the virgin birth and, a literal resurrection for Jesus of Nazareth, he did accept the assumption that first century Messianic expectations and contemporary first century Judaism should be the prevailing hermeneutic as one seeks to understand the historic Christ.

Wright works to place Jesus of Nazareth into a historical context that must be understood before one begins the work of theology. . . . . enter "Second Temple" considerations. All of Christ's activities and teachings are to be understood in this historical context. And this is the beginning of Wright's error.

It is our contention that new covenant theology should center itself in the new perspectives of Jesus of Nazareth, born King of the World and Son of God. What Wright knows about Jesus is determined by the limitations of first century Jewish expectations. Wright’s historical Christ is shaped by the tenets of contemporary Judaism as stemming from Second Temple inter-testament times. As a result, Wright’s concept of the Messiah is profoundly Jewish. He (Wright) MUST have the ministry and thinking of Paul or Jesus Christ dies the death of a Jewish Rabbi. Without Paul, the ministry and mission of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be brought to fruition.

Wright has this to say about Christ and Paul: If we are to locate both Jesus and Paul within the world of first-century Judaism, within the turbulent theological and political movements and expectations of the time (and if we are not then we should admit that we know very little about either of them) then we must face the fact that neither of them was teaching a timeless system f religion or ethics, or even a timeless message about how human beings are saved. Both of them believed themselves tobe actors within the drama staged by Israel’s God in fulfillment of his long purposes. Both, in other words, breathed the air of Jewish eschatology. .Jesus believed himself to be called to a particular role in the eschatological drama; so did Paul. . . . Jesus believed himself called to be the one through whom God’s strange purposes for Israel would reach their ordained climax. . . (WSPRS pp. 178-79). Wright continues his contrast of the two, Jesus and Paul , as he explains the “ . . . . radically different perspective of each” (Ibid, 182).

So there you have it. With Wright, first century histology and expectations are sovereign over the roles played by Jesus and Paul.

On the other hand and with Karl Barth, the prevailing hermeneutic is Jesus of Nazareth as Son of God and Son of Man. In Jesus, God and the Christ of God are revealed. Christ is the ONLY objective revelation of the God to man. We know NOTHING about God except for the life, message and indwelling of Jesus Christ.

With Wright, Christ is defined by a specific historicity.
With Barth, history is possessed and defined by the Living Word.

With Wright, in detailing the “drama,” history is sovereign.

With Barth, only God is sovereign.

Feel free to comment by clicking on the title, scrolling down and wala !!

J David Smithson
Wright versus revelation, Wright -- Contrast and Weakness from a Barthian point of view,

More on the differences between N.T.Wright and Karl Barth.

This is an answer of sorts to comments made by Aelred. Here are his comments - they were a response to the article below (next post "New Perspectives"):

Aelred said...

The trouble with this post is that it's not New Perspective OF Paul, as though Paul brought some sort of new perspective to the the scriptures and the life of Christ (your quote from Galatians is completely right), it's New Perspectives ON Paul...a way of reading all of Paul within the context of Paul's own Judaism.

Also, as a helpful reminder, the "New Perspectives" label is something that has been applied to Sanders, Dunn, Wright and others by others. It's not Wright's 'mantra' as claimed in the uncited quote.

In addition, if you've studied Wright and others in NPP you know that they don't start with 2nd Temple Judaism, they start with Christ and strive to find what he meant and how he fulfills the story of Israel with that very world.

Now while there are indeed questions that Reformed and Barthian scholars may have for NPP related to imputation of righteousness and salvation, a fair representation of NPP is needed to advance the questions and the conversations.

First, the notion that the “perspectives” are taught as the “perspectives ON Paul “ is simply not supported by anything I have read -- and, again, I have studied NPP for more than 5 years.

Secondly, there is no reason to read Paul “within the context of Paul’s own Judaism.” His gospel message includes the content found in his letters and the Galatians letter is a treatise contrasting the Law over and against the Spirit. In Philippians 3:8, when Paul speaks of counting all lost for the cause of Christ, he is specifically referring to his accomplishments and status as a Jew.

Thirdly, the moniker “new perspectives of Paul” is credited to James Dunn in the early 1980’s and is used, if not adopted, by NT Wright.

Wright, in fact, does not begin with Christ as he delves into the theology of the New Scriptures -- Barth does. Barth’s prevailing hermeneutic is the revealed Christ whom he believes is the only objective witness of God. Wright rejects this approach, preferring, instead, the establishment of Second Temple “theology” and its associated histology. In fact, Wright is quite radical in this preference.

Rather than referencing the accepted lexical aids of the day, Bauer, Gingrich, L & S, Kittles, A.T. Robertson, and the like, he (Wright) rejects such resources for the most part, believing them to be reflective of Hellenistic influences as well as etymologies. In short, Greek word studies (for example) are not nearly as valuable (if at all) as is 1st century Jewish thought and practice, considered by NPPer’s to be an extension of Second Temple construct. It is a primary tenet of NPP that present day “orthodox” theology is not an accurate reflexion of 1^st century Second Temple Jewish thought and the writings of the "very Jewish" Paul. What is commonly called “orthodoxy,” is seen as erroneous, while NPP, on the other hand, gives too much emphasis to a Jewish Messiah and the teachings of a Jewish Rabbi (Paul). Nothing wrong with taking first century Jewishness into consideration as one studies the biblical text. But there is everything wrong with doing this to the exclusion of accepted Greek studies -- the language of the new testament scriptures. There is no reason to deny Greek definitions, etymologies, grammar and syntax. In fact, such is rather preposterous, a denial of the use of the very language used to communicate the new and Christian message.

Understand that Wright gives credit to ancient language studies (What Saint Paul Really Said – WSPRS – p. 164 bottom) but when a choice is to be made, e.g. dikaiosune, between “justice” and “righteousness,” he will choose “justice” arguing for his preference by appealing to perceived “Second Temple” thinking rather than typical Greek study aids.

In this case, such an approach leads the NPP student away from accepted present day teachings with regard to righteousness (in this case), moving the biblical discussion toward the notion of “law court” remedy rather than a soteriological discussion of the righteousness of God.

It is this progression of thought that leads NPP away from the commonality of present day orthoxy and into the cultish realm of 2^nd Temple expression. With Wright, all of “our” teachings miss the point of true new covenant revelation. Hundreds, if not thousands of scholars are mistaken. He alone is correct.

In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the New Covenant is predicted and described. In that passage, the new covenant is totally different from the covenant of old. The picture in this passage is of a new covenant that is completely different in scope and nature -- “not similar to . . ," the marked difference between the paradigm of law versus the paradigm of the Spirit (Romans 2).

In the Dogmatics, Barth’s first referenced scripture is Jeremiah 31:31-34. Wright never begins with this passage nor with this thought. His (Wrights) approach does not allow for the new covenant to be “dissimilar to” while Barth, as a part of his dialectic, does allow for this difference. Wright does not preach a salvation apart from obedience to the law (which is exactly what ”works of the law” means. Rather he preaches “covenantal nomism” and, in that mantra, is little different from the Catholic doctrine of works and grace.

There is much more to discuss in this regard - but one thing at a time.

Leave a comment by clicking on the title for this piece. “Comments” can be made at the bottom of the article after the right click of the mouse.

Dunn and new perspectives, new perspectives of Christ, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Wright does not begin with Christ, Barths Christ - the only objective revelation of God, covenantal nomism, law versus spirit, Romans 2 versus NPP,

Properly speaking, it is the New Perspectives of Jesus of Nazareth.

A Complaint About The Name "New Perspectives of Paul."
NT Wright, a seeming wonderful man, one who is forceful in his defense of the physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, misses the mark in the most fundamental of considerations, namely, who is the author of the new perspectives of the Christian faith. We submit that new covenant theology it is not the "new perspectives of Paul," but, rather, the new perspectives of Jesus of Nazareth. While credit is given to Paul for these "new perspectives," a careful reading of the first two chapters of the Galatians letter makes it clear that Paul's theology came from the resurrected Jesus. There is little doubt in the mind of this editor that Paul would have summarily rejected the notion that his perspectives were, in fact, his or that they, in any way, originated with him.

Parenthetically we add: This being a site dedicated to the reformation of Evangelical Fundamentalism (where reformation is needed) and the teachings of Karl Barth. What is significantly different between the teachings found in the "New Perspectives of Paul," NT Wright's theological montra, and that of Barth is the central focus of each. With Wright, we have a historical foundation that leads us to legalistic relationship called "covental nomism" verses Barth's central and much criticized Christology.

One must alter the very wording of Paul to come up with the moniker "new perspectives of Paul." Read the man's own words as translated in the NIV: I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" Gal 1:11 , 12. Paul's gospel is neither the product of the imaginations of man, contained in any writings he might have reviewed nor was it taught to Paul by anyone other than Jesus Christ himself.

The truth of the matter is that the Christian Faith is the constellation of all that Jesus, himself, taught. Jesus of Nazareth taught a forgiveness of sins not associated with the Temple sacrifices ("your sins are forgiven, go they way and sin no more.") He made it clear that he, the Christ, was not about fulfilling the temporal expectations of the 1st century Jew, those who embraced "2nd Temple theology," if you will (i.e. "my kingdom is not of this world"). The 1st century Jews did not expect that the Messiah would be their God. More than that, Christ is the first to emphasize either the fatherhood of God or sonship, scarcely alluded to in Old Testament scripture and not at all in 2nd Temple literature. The new perspective revealing that Christ, the Messiah, is God, himself, is clearly taught in the gospel of John; likewise taught in Matthew ("Immanuel" and "this is my son . . ."), Mark, who opens with " . . . Jesus Christ, the Son of God," understand that the phrase "son of God" made Jesus equal to being God in the minds of the 1st century Jews. Luke continues the theme that Jesus is God with his lineage, tracing Christ back to God himself; the 12 year old saying, "I must be about my fathers business" and the baptismal pronouncement, "this is my son." All of four of the gospel accounts establish the deity of Jesus of Nazareth with the opening comments of each gospel ....a new perspective with regard to the Messiah. My kingdom is not of this world, other sheep have I, your sins are forgiven, the virgin birth - not simply being born of a young woman, he is the "Messiah" of the world, not just the Jews, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension, the coming of the comforter (a new teaching) and on and on. Indeed, what we have here are some of the new perspectives of Jesus of Nazareth.

And his first century audiences understood that this Rabbi was a teacher of a new discipline (Mark 1:27 ).

This editor studied the new perspectives as taught by Wright for more than 5 years. He grew tired of new terminology and the claims of a return to orthodoxy that could not be substantiated. But most importantly, he came to reject the notion that before one could understand Jesus, he had to master a certain level of knowledge concerning the inter-testament period, what is called the “2^nd temple period.” Barth, on the other hand, believed that you begin with the Living Christ, ambiguities and all, and use that fact to understand all of biblical literature . . . we believe that we may understand. In Barth, Christ is the only objective revelation of God. Folks in the New Perspectives have no clue as to what that even means. Barth understood that evangelism and salvation were tied together, that the gospel rescued man from himself and the total destruction that is the end result of self service. The NPP lay theologians continue to struggle with the purpose and process of “evangelism,” believing that personal salvation is NOT the emphatic center to the message of reconciliation - it has more to with global warming and earth based stewardship.

In the end, NPP takes from the glory of a Living Christ and substitutes a new theological existentialism as the beginning point of the Christian faith. As for me and my house, that is no choice at all.

J David Smithson

Editor

New perspectives takes from Christ, NPP and Gal 1.11, npp – existentialism, 2^nd temple,

Wonderful NT Wright but, npp and global warming, Jesus is the Faiths author, Mark 1.27 and npp

Putting New Perspectives in its place;

PUTTING THE NEW PERSPECTIVE INTO PERSPECTIVE:
SOME THOUGHTS ON SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

BY RICH LUSK

Copyright © 2003

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is a loosely defined movement held together primarily by a common understanding of Second Temple Judaism. All NPP theologians basically adhere, with varying degrees of intensity and consistency, to Ed Sanders’ claims with regard to the nature of pre-70 A.D. Judaism. Sanders has sought to demonstrate the Jews were not Pelagians before Pelagius. They knew that God had graciously elected them, so salvation was not something to be earned, but was God’s free gift to the Jews. They knew that the covenant required a response of fidelity and obedience, but this was done out of gratitude, not an attempt to merit blessing.

Sanders’ calls this pattern of religion “covenant nomism” and defines it this way:

Covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression . . . Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such . . . Righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect.

In another place, he identifies these basic features.

(1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God’s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or reestablishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement [Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 75, 420, 544, 422].

How accurate this picture is remains a matter of debate, but most scholars will at least admit the evidence cited by Sanders’ needs to be taken seriously. Only the most arrogant and insecure Reformed scholars breezily and hastily dismiss it with the wave of a hand. However, several factors complicate our evaluation of the data. I offer the following thoughts for consideration by those on both sides of the debate.

First, Judaism was by no means a monolithic entity in the first century (or even before). As several scholars have pointed out, it is really necessary to speak of various Judaisms. To speak anachronistically, there were numerous denominations within Judaism, each vying for supremacy. It is almost impossible to characterize all Jews in this or that way. The best we can hope to do is identify certain trends and broadly held convictions.

Second, the NPP has not claimed that no Jews were proto-Pelagian legalists. How could such a claim ever be proven anyway? Universal negatives are difficult for historians, working with limited and fragmentary data. The human condition being what it is, there is very little doubt that some Jews, if not many, were merit-hungry moralists in their heart of hearts, whatever they may have professed. Like the Pharisee in Lk. 18, many Jews may have been willing to thank God for their virtues even as their egos swelled with pride. I have demonstrated elsewhere that the critique of Judaism found in the NT (both the gospels and Paul) counters this prideful presumption on the part of the Jews. The NPP does not give Pelagianism a new lease on life; it remains an illegitimate soteriology. But that doesn’t mean the proto-Pelagian Jews are the ones Jesus and Paul have in cross hairs at all times. In fact, I would argue that in several cases, they most certainly did not have Jewish Pelagians in view, or else their arguments and exhortations would have been shaped quite differently. The NT polemicizes against works (e.g., Rom. 11, Tit. 3) as well as “works of the law.” That is to say, it opposes Pelagian-style works of merit done to earn salvation, as well living Jewishly as the way defining the covenant community in the messianic age.

Third (to take the above one step further), just because the Jews professed grace does not mean they really believed it. Even the most die-hard ideological Calvinist can be a legalist at heart. And the problem is all the more insidious, given that he may shield himself from criticism and conviction with his intellectual/doctrinal commitments. But by the same token, many who profess semi-Pelagianism (or Arminianism) believe in sovereign grace in their heart of hearts. They may find Calvinism distasteful because of the unattractive way it’s been presented to them, or because they do not want to draw certain conclusions that it would seem to demand from them. And yet, despite their “official” Arminianism, they know in their heart of hearts that they contributed nothing to their salvation. So whatever we find in the writings of Second Temple Judaism, the actual heart condition of individual Jews will remain unknown by us until the last day when the secrets of every heart will be made public.

Fourth, complicating factors even more is the fact that the canonical writings have countless passages that could be interpreted in a legalistic, meritorious fashion. Think of Gen. 22:16 or Mt. 6:14 or Rom. 2:5-11. So when we read meritorious sounding passages in Jewish literature, we have to ask: are they simply paraphrasing the canonical writers, or are they setting forth a theology of merit? With the biblical writers, we can always resort to broader context (e.g., Gen 22:16 is found in the context of God himself providing the sacrifice for sin, cutting short any meritorious interpretation of Abraham’s obedience). But in the case of extra-canonical Jewish writings, the broader context is difficult, if not impossible, to recover. This makes it exceedingly difficult to recover first century Jewish soteriology with any precision.

Fifth, if it is argued that the Jewish literature is too optimistic about human nature and does not take sin seriously enough, we need to remember the covenantal context. The same could be said of numerous canonical passages which assume the ability of the covenant people to obey. In Scripture, covenant members are never treated as “totally depraved,” but as recipients of covenantal grace. This fact colors and conditions the way exhortations to obedience are couched (e.g., Dt. 30). Again, if we dealt more honestly with the “problem passages” of Scripture, we would find a wider range of interpretive possibilities for the extra-canonical literature.

Sixth, evangelical and Reformed Christians have every reason to question Sanders’ competence as a historian, given his theological commitments. He is a self-professed “secular Christian” and cannot be trusted to deal faithfully with the sacred texts or to fully understand the covenantal soteriology of Biblical Judaism. He has an axe to grind (For example, look up “truth, ultimate” in the index of Sanders’ book Paul and Palestinian Judaism). Nevertheless, the man has done extensive scholarly work and interacted deeply with a broad range of sources, so his interpretation of the data must be dealt with. At the very least, Sanders’ is a recipient of “common grace,” and is extremely intelligent. We cannot ignore him. The way some Reformed theologians blow off the NPP as though it didn’t need serious examination is disappointing, to say the least. In this area, as in so many others, we cannot resolve things merely with an appeal to 400+ year old scholarship.

Seventh, some NT passages could be read as teaching that the Jews en masse were walking along in covenant fidelity before Jesus came. He provoked them to rebellion and they stumbled. This is one possible reading of Rom. 9:32-33: if the stumbling stone is Jesus, the Jews couldn’t have stumbled until he began his earthly ministry. Likewise with Rom. 11: Jesus did not find the majority of branches already broken out of the covenant tree. Rather, that occurred as a consequence of his death and resurrection. Other passages, though, give the indication that Judaism was already corrupt to the core before Jesus arrived on the scene and began his public ministry (e.g., Mt.3, 23). This is an area that needs more study: what does the NT itself indicate about the state Judaism before and after the death of Christ? The complex picture has yet to be fully grasped.

More could be said, but hopefully this shows the kinds of questions and issues that are still on the table. I do think the NPP has raised many important issues and proven at least a large portion of its case straight off the pages of the NT. But the details of Second Temple Judaism form a collection of puzzle pieces that have yet to be put together into a coherent whole. There is still much work to be done.

Copyright © 2003

Rich Lusk is a Minister of the Gospel in the Presbyterian Church in America and the Assistant Pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church.

A great article definition the option of including Barth in the pursuit for a biblical theology.

(May 10, 1886 – December 10, 1968)

Article updated 12/6/09

This article (the author's name was not attached when I came across the publication) was posted here in late October. While we agree with the general theme and tone, it could be a bit more accurate in places. With that in mind, allow for amendments to be added to this article before the end of the weekend. For the time being, suffice it to say that Barth's view of biblical authority is the same as for the typical evangelical fundamentalist. He just gets there in a very different way - one that preserves the sovereignty of God and the work of the Living Word, namely the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, our God and savior. While there are several minor issues we wish to cover in our amended review of this article, the point with regard to the written word of God is of greatest importance. You should know that in Barth's Church Dogmatics, he references holy scripture approximately 80,000 times. And, while here in America back in the early 1960's, he gave his famous and quite sincere answer to this question, "Can you give us a summary statement with regard to your theology (the gest of the question is presented, not the exact wording - editor)?" and he responded with these exact words, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." It is strange to this editor that the evangelical church accepts, for the most part, the writings of Bonhoeffer but has problems with Barth. It was Pastor Barth who pulled Bonhoeffer back from the brink of a meaningless and existential liberalism. But more on this matter before the end of the weekend - J David Smithson, editor (12/5/09)

In discussions concerning the doctrine of scripture modern evangelical theologians and scholars often dismiss the profound insight of Karl Barth. That is not to say Barth was always right. There is much to disagree about his theology, a great deal which needs to at least be given serious consideration when formulating ones own theological positions, and common ground that will help all as they walk toward the common goal of knowing God. Herein lies a brief exploration of why Karl Barth should be allowed a place in discussions about ‘doctrine of scripture.’

Editor's notes: in a word, Barth believes in the purpose and place of holy scripture as it appears in the Bible and only the Bible. In Barth, scripture is assimilated by the church, the process being "ordained" - if you will- by God. In the formulation of his theology on this point, the good pastor was concerned with man's view of God's sovereignty. In Barth, two considerations seem to be over-riding concerns: one is the notion of the sovereignty of God and the other is the Living Christ. With Barth, both are real, prevailing in influence and the determinate factor(s) in all other theological concerns. One cannot understand Barth without a thorough going understanding of his use of the dialectic circumstance. Without getting into all the details of Barth's dialectic, we stress the fact that (in Barth) Christ is the reconcilitory solution to the tension exposed in any dialectic. For example, the dialectic that is the old man/new man is resolved by the mediation of the Living Word. Ditto for tension between works and grace, good and evil, "spiritual" strength and weakness, eternity and the temporal, knowing and not knowing, and so forth. So much for the prevailing influence of the Living Word.

As for the sovereignty of God, nothing can or should be invented in the mind of man that equals or challenge that sovereignty. Barth feared that a "systematic theology" is an affront to God's sovereignty, allowing man to refer to his own theological systems rather than to the leading of God. If there are weaknesses in the biblical text, God's sovereignty demands that God will reign over those perceptions and succeed in making his point.

Karl Barth was schooled in the liberal ideologies that characterized theological thinking in the early twentieth century, particularly in Europe and especially Germany. He had a “revelation” akin to that of Martin Luther’s Romans 1:17 experiences in which Luther realized the errors being taught by the church. Barth saw in the world, especially post WWI, the inconsistencies of liberalism with the message God shows in the Bible. This led to his book The Epistle to the Romans. He considered his first edition inadequate and rewrote it shortly after its publication. The sixth edition has become a marker in conservative theology. Barth makes the serious theologian put aside any preconceived notions and enter into dialogue that starts with God, His Word, and His Will. It is exactly that challenge that makes Karl Barth controversial.

Editor's notes: actually, Barth was rather embarrassed with the failings of the first Romans and was never fully satisfied with his revisions to Romans. The problem? His existential training. In no way did Barth desire an existential theology. Perhaps that is why his Christology was as profoundly centered in Christ as it was. If one reads the preface notes in the current edition of Barth's Romans, he will note Barth's disappointment with the Romans effort.

Controversy does not need to be the definitive word in our conversations about Barth. The pride of being the one correct position often clouds our judgments and hence interferes with the purpose of theology – understanding God and communicating that understanding to others. When a new voice – or a voice newly heard – arises, we should listen to the reasoning in the sound of the instruction instead of rushing to drown out that voice because it does not fit neatly into the arrangements of conformity. If Barth could put aside the conformities of the respected German liberal theologies of his day then he should be afforded the same due process in our discussions about the doctrine of scripture in our day. In fact, as Mark DeVine has noted about Albert Mohler’s observations, “many evangelicals who worked hard to cast Barth as an enemy of the gospel showed little evidence of having read him.[1] DeVine quotes J. I. Packer (God Who is Rich in Mercy), “Barth’s purpose of being rigorously, radically, and ruthlessly biblical and his demand for interpretation that is theologically coherent, is surely exemplary for us.”[2]

Editor's notes: one of Barth's most ferocious critics was Francis Schaeffer. It is obvious that Schaeffer never actually studied Barth or took the time to discuss his differences with the good pastor (they were contemporaries, you know).Criticism of Barth by those who are willfully ignorant of his teachings is a common reality -- too common.

Packer rightly observes Barth’s most outstanding quality in his theology that should drive us to better understand him, and how we can bring his conclusions to a place where they bolster and strengthen consensus views instead of standing outside in a place of critically derived snobbery. Packer gives credit to Barth by saying “he laid constant stress on God’s sovereign freedom and lordship in grace, on man’s incapacity in his sin to feel after God and find him, on the reality of God’s communion with us through the Word that he speaks to us in Christ, and on the instrumentality of the Scriptures in conveying to us the knowledge of Christ and of grace that they exhibit.”[3] To hear Barth in his own words,

We talk of sovereignty, a command, an obedience, a willingness and allegiance unlike any other, because in him we meet a sovereign unlike any other. When Jesus rules God rules, and God rules when Jesus rules. That is why this sovereignty is quite unlike any other sovereignty, and why there is not other obedience on earth like this one.[4]

This view of God and the sovereignty of God is what drives Barth’s theology. Such a high view of God is indeed refreshing in this time of scholarship where individuality leads many a well-meaning preacher to deduce for himself the meaning from the text instead of letting the text reveal God to him. The distraction of trying to redefine each word of the Bible in an effort to maintain cultural relevance is not present with Barth. “There must be absolute confidence in holy scripture…”[5] The preacher must approach scripture as revealing God to the reader and hearer. “Scripture says the same thing, but it constantly says the one thing different ways.”[6] In essence, scripture is the written revelation of God to His elect. Through its pages He enables us to interact, fellowship, and worship Him. A Person is revealed therein and that Person becomes synonymous with the very scriptures themselves.

Editor's notes: understand that Barth believed that God does his work in (during) the proclamation of the word at all levels. The preacher draws benefit as well as the listener. The student, likewise, encounters the reality of God in Christ as he studies or the professor as he lecturers or the theologian as he shares and writes. Again, God works in the proclamation of his word. A wonderful thought. . . . and very true.

Barth identifies in A Shorter Commentary on Romans the person of Jesus Christ as being the motivation for Paul in his ministry and for his correspondences. “…Paul has at once spoken very substantially of the cause that moves him. This cause is a person (Romans 1:1)…This Lord has given him the grace of the apostolate (Romans 1:5) the office of an accredited ambassador, and this office commissions him to proclaim the Gospel, the good news.”[7] The words Paul communicates to the church at Rome are not the charter for Paul’s ministry. The words are how Paul describes what Jesus entrusted to him – the task and lifework that Paul would undertake.

What then do we do with Barth’s assertion that Scripture is merely a witness to the ‘Word of God’ and not actually the ‘Word of God?’[8] We should allow that Barth is at the very least not incorrect if he is not totally accurate. Today’s conservative evangelical thinking relies heavily on what Steve Wellum[9] identifies as the ‘Received’ view.[10] As can be seen already, Barth held scripture in high regard and viewed them as being the authority to which all must be held accountable. This holds closely to the Sola Scriptura principle that came out of the Reformation which is held by most conservative evangelicals today.

Editor's notes: in fact, his theology has been characterized as "biblical theology" and is criticized for that very reason. In the writings of Barth, you will find a stark neglect with regard to discussions of textual criticisms and the inventions of man, namely "second Isaiah," or "Q" or the synoptic problem, or the issues with the conclusion to the book of Mark or the supposed debate between James and Paul regarding works. We are not saying that Barth is unaware of these issues. Rather, he believes that because God joins man in the proclamation of the written or Living word, textual issues are of little ultimate concerns. For Barth, "Bible study" was not about the parsing of words or the details of particular etymological issues - it is about Christ and God's introduction of him in holy scripture. The layman cares only for the practical issue of meeting and living with Christ. Ditto for the theology of Barth.

So where is the disagreement? Where those that hold to the supposed ‘Received’ view of scripture will stop at scripture only being the Word of God, Barth holds that the Word of God has a Trinitarian aspect similar to the Trinity. That is, it has a threefold meaning: Word revealed (Jesus Christ), Word written (scripture), and Word proclaimed.[11] Eberhard Busch, in The Great Passion, says of Barth that “the object of theology, that is, what Barth calls the ‘Word’ or ‘revelation,’ is truly identical with the person of Jesus Christ.”[12] Quoting from Barth himself (Der Götze wackelt),

The saying in John 1:14 is the center and theme of all theology…I have no Christological principle and no Christological method. Rather, in each individual theological question I seek to orient myself afresh to some extent from the very beginning – not on a Christological dogma but on Jesus Christ himself.[13]

“The Word of God is the Word that God spoke, speaks, and will speak in the midst of all men.”[14] Hence, the threefold elucidation of Barth fleshes out the one-dimensional stance of the so-called ‘Received’ view. It presents God as speaking now today and not just in the past. Busch says as much himself in the forward to The Word in this World, “the question is much more whether [we] hear and pay attention to what God says – not only said, but says.”[15]

It is the ‘we’ that brings Barth’s view of the doctrine of scripture to a place of compliment with that of the ‘Received’ view. The ‘Received’ view, in its attempt to get back to the original text, relies on a new evangelical magisterium[16] to provide meaning to the text for the congregations. This elitist’s ideology has become a prevalent form of theology in many churches. It drives polity, directs outreach, and derives leadership functions. By allowing Barth’s view to stand alongside the ‘Received’ view the text becomes a living text that speaks God’s Word to our hearts instead of a moldy document we can only understand correctly if someone else shows us how. Jesus as the Word is not just a figure in history but a living Savior. He becomes the object of all the functioning of the church as He is proclaimed.

Editor's notes: we could not agree more or have written it more to the point. In the end, Barth's regard and use of scripture is precisely the same as that of the evangelical fundamentalist . He fully accepts the resurrection, the virgin birth and every possible fundamental consideration of the evangelical church.

As a Barthian view of scripture is allowed to come into our theological discussions then the church takes on a whole different dimension itself. Instead of being the social club looking for relevance in this world the church would rediscover its purpose of being – proclaiming Jesus, the Word. The community of the elect will coalesce into a community of faith. “It is the commonwealth gathered, founded, and ordered by the Word of God, the ‘communion of the saints.’”[17] The church has the self-realization of unmerited salvation. The rallying point shifts from the number of members to the discipling of its members. The Word stops being a static document sometimes read before Sunday school and rarely read in church services. Instead, the Word becomes the living person of Jesus Christ who the church gathers to worship and proclaim in all antiquity and in all eternity yet to come. “Christian community exists only where the promise [the Word] is heard and believed [and hence acted on].”[18] Furthermore, if God is to be realized in our churches then churches need to have God revealed to them. “God is revealed in Jesus Christ through the witness of Holy scripture.”[19]

The ‘Received’ view as the main point of reason for creating community becomes an incomplete rationale. While it provides a wonderful framework upon which to build a more complete paradigm its reliance upon the verbal-plenary [20] aspect of revelation is its only true strength. The danger is that the paper and ink of the manuscripts and its ensuing translations becomes the object of worship rather than the Giver. Without the perception that Jesus is the Word of God first and foremost as in Barth’s theology then the tendency is for the written word to take precedence and become worshiped, even if inadvertently, in His place.

In sum, our statement distinguishes the Word spoken in the existence of Jesus Christ from all others as the Word of God. When we think of these others, we do well to include even the human words spoken in the existence and witness of the men of the Bible and the Church. In distinction from all these, Jesus Christ is the one Word of God.[21]

Karl Barth has been a controversial figure in theological circles. Many are introduced to him via the vehicle of negative descriptions and derogatory critiques. A cut-and-paste sound-bite mentality pervades the discussions that may ensue about him and his theology with hardly any true substantive reading of his works. There are some that have dared to read Karl Barth and interact with him thereby keeping alive the dialogue that fuels healthy theological explorations. William Willimon opines in his introduction to The Word in this World, “We are a profoundly insecure people and the source of our insecurity is revealed to be not Islamic terrorists but rather the God who commands us in Jesus the Christ. I’m therefore hearing Barth’s sermon as a call across the years…to be the preacher that God has called me to be.”[22]“Preach on, Karl Barth.”[23]

Editor's notes: when it is all said and done, Barth is criticized for his profound focus on Jesus Christ as the Christ of God and man, the central focus of all of scripture. His theology is criticized for being a "biblical theology." He is seen in some quarters as being naive in his acceptance of the resurrection, virgin birth and ascension of Christ. They call him a neo-orthodox theologian, when, in fact, his call was for a return to orthodoxy and in that calling, he is "neo" in terms of present day theologies. He opposed existential and philosophical inclusions in the development of theology. His Church Dogmatics references scripture some 80,000 times and all of his theology, every word, is based on an attempt to understand scripture. He believed in a dynamic and influential indwelling, something even some evangelicals miss. His influence is everywhere in evangelical literature. As an example, our Baptist church just finished a study in Blackaby's Experiencing God. Barth is never noted but his influence runs throughout the book. In fact, Blackaby's "crisis of faith" is one of Barth's more fundamental teachings - nearly 100 years ago and well before Blackaby was born. Why the Evangelical Fundamental Church rejects Barth is beyond this fundamentalists ability to reason.
__________________________

---

[1] Mark DeVine. Evangelicals and Karl Barth: Friends or Foes?, (a paper delivered at the Annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Colorado Springs, Colorado 2001).[2] Ibid.

[3] J. I. Packer, Encountering Present-Day Views of Scripture, www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article­_views_packer.html

[4] Kurt I. Johanson. ed. The Word in this World: Two Sermons by Karl Barth. (Regent College Publishing: Vancouver, British Columbia, 2007) 48.

[5] Karl Barth, Homiletics. (Westminster/John Knox Press: Louisville, Kentucky 1991) 76.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans. (John Knox Press: Richmond, Virginia 1963) 15.

[8] S. J. Wellum, Systematic Theology I Handouts (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: Louisville, Kentucky 2007) 30.

[9] Ibid, 29.

[10] Lecture notes indicate that the received view is tied closely to the identity thesis that states Scripture is the Word of God, as brought out by B. B. Warfield. It states also that even if not provable the original manuscripts should be considered without error in all regards and allows that copies may themselves contain errors. Barth is not without fault in this regard as he believed the first eleven chapter of Genesis to probably be myth, though he viewed them to hold the same authority as the rest of scripture.

[11] Ibid, 30.

[12] Eberhard Busch, The Great Passion. (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan 2004) 30.

[13] Ibid, 30.

[14] Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: an Introduction. (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan 1963) 18.

[15] Kurt I Johanson,. ed. The Word in this World: Two Sermons by Karl Barth. (Regent College Publishing: Vancouver, British Columbia, 2007) 7.

[16] This borrows from the Roman Catholic view that only a select group could provide correct interpretation of the scriptures as only they had the scholarship and technical skill to necessary for such a task. This was one of the underlying issues of the Reformation – letting the commoner read for himself the Bible thereby hearing from God.

[17] Karl Barth. Evangelical Theology: an Introduction. (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan 1963) 36.

[18] Karl Barth, Preaching to the Captives. CD ROM. 1957.

[19] Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man. (N. P., Pilgrim Press 1928) 195-6.

[20] Wellum. The Bible is the very Word of God itself in that all (plenary) is inspired of God, right down to the very words of the text (verbal).

[21] Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, 1994) 230.

[22] Johanson, 22.

[23] Ibid.