Three Criticisms of Barth Addressed

Barth is too ambivalent in his theological conclusions.

I doubt that Barth had an ambivalent bone in his body. Everything he wrote had purpose. I think you will find that his theology is so intertwined that he really did not know when to stop writing and take a breath. Accepted theology at the turn of the century (1900's) had no regard for Israel and the O.T. Barth brought change to this de-emphasis of Israel. Here is a quote from the Barth Society Newsletter (#10, 1994) that will help clarify: “What [Barth] wrote about the Jewish people horrifies many of us today, but his radical break with the past cannot be denied: against the weight of the whole tradition, Barth insisted that the Jewish people today are Israel, as Jews themselves have always said … For all his shortcomings, Barth taught us to say 'the Church and Israel' and thus contributed importantly in ushering us into what may become the third great period of Church history, one that may come to be called that of the Church with and for Israel” (Paul Van Buren). While Barth was not a Dispensationalist, his high regard for Israel (present day) and Israel’s role in the biblical record was influenced somewhat by Dispensationalism ! In comments concerning Romans, chapter 11 (CD II.2 section 34,4), Barth supports this view and gives as his only supporting reference, presented by him as “extremely useful,” a work by E.F. Stroter. Stroter was a Fundamentalist Dispensationalist in the late 1800’s and was very active in the “prophecy conference movement in Americia” and was active in that movement in America and Germany (Barth Society Newsletter, p 2, The Church with and for Israel, #10, 1994).


Barth's "universalism" is counter to the Christian message.

In a careful reading of Barth, you will find that he specifically rejects universalism. My opinion is not critical to Barthian studies, but my opinion is all I have to share, on this point and that is what I will do in this textual moment.

I believe you will find that, in Barth, God in Christ accomplished the end of law with the cross and the fulfillment of the law in the incarnate Christ, His life, ministry, sacrificial death and resurrection. The forensic consideration of God’s administration was fulfilled and brought to an end with the Cross. The Cross ushers in the “last days.” The New Covenant and the partnership between God and man as predicted in Jere 31:34 is ushered in. Of the approx 80,000 biblical references in Barth, the very first reference in all of his Church Dogmatics (CD I.1, p. 5, T & T Clark, Pub.) is Jere. 31:34 ! With this Jeremiah passage, we have the predictive end of the Old and the definitive beginnings of the New. The historical act that transcends the two covenants and gives us the effectual transference from one to the other is the death of the Son on the cross. Before a new testament becomes effective, we must have the death of the 'testator.' This death on the cross ended the first testament and its requirements and summoned us all into a new covenant. Barth viewed this event as universal and completed (John 3:16). Deliverance from the curse of law has been accomplished and accomplished for all. Indeed, there is now no condemnation in view of the Law's requirement (Ro 8:1). Because God is sovereign in the solitary pursuit of this deliverance, its blessings are apart from human effort - apart from works of law. He could not fail in this. The decision to act and the function of the vicarious [life and] death are borne of God’s economy, alone. The inwardness (Jere 31:34) that continues God’s relationship with man does not over-ride man’s decision to participate. I believe there is a difference in Barth between forensic judgment and the relational event between God and man that must be considered, truly, a partnership that defines our very ontology. In Barth, man’s humanity is not determined [solely] by his own humanness, but, rather, by the ontic consideration that is God/man. Man is not man apart from the organic phenomenon that is the 'breath of life from God Himself.' The tie between God and man that was the result of God's creation of man was damaged in the garden. All of mankind has participated in Adam's sin (Rom. 5:12). Christ repairs or reconciles this injured relationship as Son of God and Son of Man (Col 1:19-23). We have all been delivered from the curse of the Law's command in this reconciliation. Salvation on that level is an universal reality. The act of reconciliation deposed the Law and added to its vacancy the Rule of the Spirit. Again and indeed, we have all been saved from the condemnation of law in general (Romans 2) and The Law in particular. But the biblical notion of 'salvation' is more than deliverance from law; it now includes man's appropriation of the Spirit of God. The biblical message calls this appropriation 'obedience.' Obedience brings health, peace, unity, maturity. Conversely, disobedience , in Barth, is that action of Man that denies God's internal command (see Philip 2:12-13). As it turns out, Man cannot function apart from God without committing “suicide” as it were. You are either obeying the internal command of God-in-Christ or you are not disobeying (refusing) that command. Salvation / condemnation are attached to this reality as are life and death and heaven and hell. Deliverance at this point is not the issue. God will not save us from ourselves if we are bent on self destruction.

Barth did not honour the authority of the Bible.

The inerrancy criticism is correct. Barth did not believe that this doctrine had anything to do with first century thinking as relates to the Scriptures. He believed that the Bible was a testament of Christ written by men but more than that, he believed that the biblical account to be the written witness of God to man [by man]. He does not believe there is any other source of revelatory/conceptual information as relates to God’s approach to man. He does believe the Bible to be the Word of God but because of how God uses the Bible in the function of illumination. In Barth, God is given opportunity on every occasion of the proclamation of the Word. And the “Word,” in this case, is the Living Christ. In short, the Evangelical speaks of the inspiration of Scripture as a collection of letters and 'books' while Barth speaks of inspiration as an event that occurs between God and man in the reading or teaching of Scripture. Neither Barth nor the Evangelical have less regard for the Bible than the other. Barth once reduced all that he ever wrote into this comment: “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”

I have spent years in the study of this wonderful pastor. At no time does he ever drag textual criticism into the discussion. Certainly he was aware of the many problematic issues in textual criticism. Certainly he knew of every liberal attack on the Bible. And, yet, his commentary is written as if there were no serious biblical/textual problems. He never challenges the authenticity of a passage of scripture. He does not need to. His belief in the Sovereignty of God gave him confidence that God would be his guide as he read, studied, preached and taught the Holy Scriptures. He was once asked to summarize his theology; his response was historic: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." No theologian believed that statement more completely. It is the fool who makes Barth the 'liberal' in this consideration.

jds