Posted on by Reformed Reader

Barth on Church Confession and Language

I ran across a great section of Barth’s Dogmatics in Outline (p. 86-87) that is important for us in our age of language-games, equivocation, and loss of definite truth.

“The Church…looks in its message at this immeasurable and unfathomable fact, that God has given himself for us.  And that is why in each really Christian utterance there is something of an absoluteness such as cannot belong to any non-Christian language.  The church is not ‘of the opinion,’ it does not have ‘views,’ convictions, enthusiasms.  It believes and confesses, that is, it speaks and acts on the basis of the message based on God himself in Christ.  And that is why all Christian teaching, comfort and exhortation is a fundamental and conclusive comfort and exhortation in the power of that which constitutes its content, the mighty act of God, which consists in the fact that he wills to be for us in his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ” (emphasis in original).

Great stuff. 

This is also a good time to remind readers that when we post a blurb from a book, it doesn’t always mean we love (or hate, if the post is critical) the whole book.  We do think that most of the books we post on are helpful to some extent, even when we disagree with small or large parts of their theological content.  

shane lems

sunnyside wa

23 Replies to “Barth on Church Confession and Language”

  1. I’m reading that book right now! I’ve been enjoying it. There’s a lot of thought provoking stuff in it, even if I also disagree with some of his ideas as well. If nothing else, he really makes you think! I really like his strong Christ-centered approach to Christian doctrine.

    Like

    1. Glad you enjoy it. Just remember, though, that “Christ” in Barth’s theology is not what we (Reformers) mean when we say Christ. Behind Barth’s terms is a huge world – sometimes good stuff, sometimes scary-bad stuff. Anyway, read on, but remember there is a Barth behind Barth, so to speak!

      shane

      Like

      2. I would take myself, one line of Barth over most every other theolog today! Simply a modern Church Father! That does not make him infallible, as Calvin, etc. But simply a great Christian thinker!
        Fr. R.

        Like

      4. Pat: Sorry – I’m away from my study for a few days, so I can’t give you citations within the book we’re speaking of. Stay tuned…

        And yes, Fr. R., his stuff is better than much drivel out there today.

        shane

        Like

  2. The danger with Barth is that his concepts are heretical but framed in biblical language – in my view in very much the same way self help psychology can be patched together with bible verses and called biblical psychology. Barth’s Christ is not the Christ of the Bible but an existential opportunity – He has been reduced to an event. Calvin is a safe guide – Barth is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He is very clever and interesting, but he writes rubbish just like a wise greek. Barth’s Church really is not Christ’s Church at all(See RL Reymond’s monograph “Barth’s doctrine of election and reconciliation.”

    Like

    1. Certainly Calvin is a better choice, but to say all of this about Barth, is also “rubbish”. Sorry mate, but this is kinda like a “fundamentalist” mentality. Barth makes mistakes, as all theolog’s, but to read his material is to see solid Christology, and God triune. – Fr. R.

      Like

      1. Karl Barth’s theology is certainly within that of the so-called crisis or dialectical theology. It transcends traditional orthodoxy to see God dialectically, that is, as an absolute without constraints of formulas. Here God comprehends all paradoxes and contradictions, as yes and no. Thus God is both mercy and judgment, working within history while outside of time.

        While this is really beyond the scope of scripture revelation itself, in the full sense. It is sometimes true that since God is both transcendent and immanent, we are often pressed to this place of mystery and really paradox. And sometimes this is the reality of the tension of God’s Word. We can but say, amen! It is here that Barth can be of some help. But we need not except all of his presuppositions.

        Fr. R.

        Like

  3. Hi Fr.R
    Thankyou for the response. I replied last night and then lost all the work. That indeed was a fundamental error! Anyway here is another attempt.

    I probably was too quick in my comment to try to make a point and so I was cryptic, but not fundamentalist. The point I was trying to make is that there is a significant difference in the orthodox gospel as opposed to the neo-orthodox gospel. The reformers (and church fathers) achieved a clear powerful transcendency through the historical incarnation and resurrection. God in truth has re-established communication with man through the God-Man Jesus Christ. Barth achieves the transcendence through the Christ Event. This is not powerful transcendency. If we except Barth’s presuppositions then we are misreading him. If we accept Barth’s presuppositions then we are redefining Biblical terminology. And so Calvin remains for us a safe guide that does not confuse the church. Barth is brilliant, fascinating, intellectual and interesting and may (I suppose) be profitably read, but is no safe guide and continues to confuse the church through his work. We also acknowledge it is important to study Aristotelian logic to understand the church fathers, but he is to be read with care especially when it comes to orthodox theology.

    Regards
    Mark

    Like

  4. Mark,

    Thanks for the better thoughts on Barth. I know he is a tough read. I am not sure however I can make the clean difference, as you, with neo-orthodox verses the classic Reformed gospel? I am myself more towards the Reformed, with Calvin. But I would be more Infralapsarianism. My point would be, as Barth I think? That God is still God, and sometimes cannot be canned in theological statements. As much as we need the Reformed Creeds, they are not, at least for me as an Anglican Christian (both Catholic & Reformed),like the Ecumenical Creeds, and of course the Scripture text alone. And I don’t see Calvin myself as tight as the Westminister Creed.
    Fr. R.

    Like

    1. Fr.R.

      On this topic I think we will have to disagree. I would have loved to talk more freely along the lines of our differences because I think it can be quite definitely proven that the lines dividing Calvinism and Barthianism or to be more ecumenical, between Orthodoxy and Neo Orthodoxy are a watershed in their consequences and it is important for the Reformed community to be very definite about that. After all the issue is “important for us in our age of language-games, equivocation, and loss of definite truth.”

      best regards
      Mark

      Like

      1. Mark,

        Well I am no Barthian that is for sure. But there is really no pure Reformed faith either, not in the sense that some would have it. We are always cast upon the Word of God itself, always our/the Churches reforming principle!

        Best..
        Fr. Robert

        Like

  5. Fr. Robert

    You lure me in again! Although this discussion is between two people I really believe this is the conversation the church requires.

    When you write “We are always cast upon the Word of God itself, always our/the Churches reforming principle” that is precisely where we disagree. God’s Word is the BASIS for all reformation on that we agree, but the Reformed Confessions give the PRINCIPLES of common understanding to reform the church. These Confessions were very specific in their principles. The moment we altar these principles we change the basis for Reformation. That is what Barth did. Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, Viret, Vermigli etc. all worked within the same lines of interpretation. The Neo Orthodox work along the lines of re-interpretation i.e. modified confessionalism. I believe that there is a clear scriptural argument for the Reformed Confessions. Barth’s doctrine of Scripture is extra confessional and rightly so, because it is the only way in which he can “reasonably” modify the confessions.

    regards
    Mark

    Like

    1. Mark,

      I am as I said not Barthian, but I am an Anglican, and the Reform of the Thirty-nine Articles. Note, both the Ecumenical Councils and the Articles. See too Article, XVII. But, I would be closer to the Belgic Confession also. So I am not against the Puritan Reformed Creeds, just see them as somewhat historical, and not the “priciples” of reform purely as you. I too like Bullinger, and certainly Peter Martyr Vermigli, as always Sir John Calvin. Also I am not advocating Neo-Orthodoxy. But I am not as willing as you to see them as so negatively. The Church is always in the long process of Reform, but also still Catholic and something of the continuation of the incarnation of Christ on earth. We have not brought in the Lutheran and even newer work of some R. Catholics, etc.
      Fr. R.

      Like

      2. I do accept your position that you have indicated in our correspondence. I think our discussion has more to do with consistency of position. So I would include the Anglican Standards (39 articles as interpreted by the Homlies), the Westminster Standards, The Dutch Reformed Standards and the Lutheran Standards as part of the orthodox confessional community.

        But once again I do not accept any Roman Catholic derivative of the Trent tradition and certainly no deviations as I discussed above. The church is either reforming or deforming. The confessional community has a set of principles for reform each to a greater or lesser degree. These groups that I oppose however are deforming. And once again integrity and consistency requires that it is “important for us in our age of language-games, equivocation, and loss of definite truth.”

        greetings
        Mark

        Like

  7. Mark,

    Well this is not the age of Trent thanks be to God. We have come aways from that. I was rasied Irish R. Catholic in Dublin Ireland, and I am over 50 (will leave it at that..lol). And I was somewhat educated RC years ago now. My point however, is that we must see and search for truth in the whole Church Catholic. Both East and West. Though I am not E. Orthodox for example, their work on the Incarnation and the Trinity of God is profound! Remember, the great dogmatic work of the Eastern and Orthodox Church was the definition of that portion of the creed of Christendom which concerns theology proper – the doctrines of the essential nature of the Godhead and the doctrine of the Godhead in relation with mandhood in the incarnation…Nicaea I and Chalcedon came off of Eastern ground.

    I am no longer Roman Catholic, but I realize that with Vatican II there was some real change. Minds and men like John Henry Newman (his work of the doctrine development still being felt..he voted against Vatican I by the way). And others like Hans Urs von Balthasar, etc. I still cannot see the papacy of course, but they are much different than when Trent was the rule. I read the other day in a book by Mike Horton, that he used the new pope in a positive light on the covenant. And even before that I think I read good quotes from Dowey years back now.

    Reform is not something “we” do, as much as what God Himself does. So the reforming principle is both confessional, but always to the “Word & Spirit” of God. The Creeds are always beneath the Revelation of God, for true protestants, as was both Luther and Calvin. But, the Ecumneical Councils.. I am not certain either Calvin or Luther’s Christology stands against anything there? Someone quote me if I am wrong? I mean on the Godhead and the Incarnation there.

    Finally, I don’t see language games with every R. Catholic theolog, or E. Orthodox. But sadly more in my own Communion, and sometimes even a so-called Reformed? I am as I said, still Reformed, but also Catholic.. as an Anglican and person seeking the via-media (the middle way). But I am still in the process of Reform myself, as one seeking Christ and His eschaton, but knowing my full and free acceptance “In Christ”, by grace & glory…God’s!

    Yours,
    Fr. Robert

    Like

    1. Fr. Robert,

      In terms of our discussion above I believe your last response adds no new insight to our positions.
      Just three points of clarification:
      1. All the Reformed Confessions I listed above embrace the first five ecumenical councils. The Reformers held that the Reformation recovered the Church, it did not break from the Church
      2. Newman is clearly exposed in his own day by William Cunningham & Michael Horton would certainly take exception to being identified with the pope in a positive light (ask him at the Whithorse Inn) and
      3. In the instance where you refer to language games I would rather highlight “equivocation, and loss of definite truth” (b.t.w. officially I believe based on evidence produced by the RCC that the RCC has not really gotten beyond Trent).
      I think it is time for me to take a bow on this one. I have enjoyed our conversation and pray that it may be used to God’s glory and our mutual edification and growth in grace.

      greetings
      Mark
      Markdp8@gmail.com
      (From the great province of Alberta)

      Like

      1. Mark,

        I wish that more Reformed knew and stood with the Ecumenical Councils today!

        The attack on Newman’s character and life is without real historical evidence. Shame indeed on those that have brought such. Only biased minds will countenance such poor evidence and this approach. I have read Newman in great depth, both his theology and some aspects of his personal life. He was a true Anglican, and later a Catholic-Christian and Victorian soul, not to mention his profound theological mind and thought. If one will simply read him, this comes to light rather quickly. It was no surprise that Newman was made a Cardinal, though later in his life. If you had read about his life, you would see that he had many friends outside the Roman Church, even the the great Scot Alexander Whyte.

        And just a note about myself, I am married with two son’s, and I am a former Royal Marine officer (Recon and Spl.Op’s..Gulf War 1, etc.) I am very conservative both biblically and politically.

        Finally, I stand too upon the Holy and Infallible, Inerrant Word of God! With the Thirty-nine Anglican Articles. Both Catholic & Reformed. No equivocation, language games, or the loss of any definite truth! Here I also like and prefer the Belgic Confession, as to this aspect to historical creed. But always the bare, straight, breath & word of God! (2 Tim.3:16)

        * This may really surprise you, but I am in the place of the historic or covenant premillennialist (post-trib.). Seeing the place of national Israel (Rom.11:23-29).

        Yours In Christ,
        Fr. Robert

        Like

Comments are closed.