Is Karl Barth OK?

Status
Not open for further replies.
po18guy said:
If you want to understand Luther, read about Luther. There is enough material there for a lifetime, and Luther’s thoughts and beliefs about himself and God have colored all of Protestantism/bible Christianity to this day. I would caution only that one might not delve into Protestant theology until and unless they were well grounded in the Catholic faith. At some level, even subliminal, reformation theology is intended to lure you away from Catholicism. Certainly not overtly in many cases, but we all know about subtlety.

There is a Priest who wrote a rather authoritative biography of Luther - I forget his name, but someone here will know.
Click to expand...
Luther is a piece of cake to read compared to Kierkegaard or Barth, et al. Quite a ride too. Hilarious, offensive, inspiring, enlightening. A good Christian man - if all too human.

I have also had good luck going chronologically through philosophy, theology. Start with the Greeks, Plato, Aristotle, etc. Build from there. Get a good survey if you are too lazy / time constricted to read a lot. I mean like Oxford publishing it, etc. A respected source. I also like to get older stuff, before our modern age, post 60s. If I see a date like 1930, I grab it - for Greek philosophy, European philosophers, etc. Again, well known publishers. Noel, along these lines I would go to your local library and get a few good books on Barth. Then try Barth. After one or two guides, biographies. Ditto Kierkegaard, any philosopher really. I think good, mainstream guidance is critical if you are not in college, taking a course, study, etc. Just to make sure you know what you are doing. Another good piece of news is that you pick it up. I really suffered with Hegel in college - couldn’t get him plus did not like him - but as time wore on, literally like a month, I was just breezing through objects, subjects, can’t even remember it all now. I can’t even understand my own papers I wrote on him now. It is like a language - intense exposure really snowballs - you become fluent. Helps with Kierkegaard - German rationalism. Plus the attacks are such great fun.
 
FollowChrist34 #21

Thanks so much for your reply. I really enjoyed it as it is a challenge for me. It shows CAF at its best, being friendly, Catholic, sound and stimulating.

However, having passed my three scores years and ten and thus being in extra time, I do not think I will be able to wade through Plato and all the others you mention including Barth.

I think I would find it easier to grasp Homer and Bart (Simpson)!

But I will try to grasp the mystery of our religion, which is great, and prepare for my final exam.
 
NoelFitz said:
Estavao #9

To the question 'Is this what Barth taught, and is it not in conflict with Catholicism?’ You reply ‘I think so’. So you consider Barth is NOT in conflict with Catholicism.
Your reply does not seem to support this.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I meant that I find Barth to be in conflict with Catholicism. He is known as a ‘reformed’ theologian and in my experience, ‘reformed’ Christians are the most expressly anti-Catholic.
 
Estavao

Thanks for your most recent reply.

Would you like to tell us where Barth is in disagreement with Catholicism?

The website postbarthian.com/2013/08/02/karl-barth-on-the-main-differences-between-the-roman-catholic-and-protestant-confessions/ might help.

But I will not go through all the arguments, I will only note that Catholics have always (at least since Augustine) believed in prevenient (antecedent) grace. Grace is first given to us before we do any meritorious act.

“There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the first act of the will” (de fide)

The existence and necessity of prevenient grace was defined at the council of Trent (Ott p. 227).
 
Well I think Barth boiled it down to this, as he said in the Church Dogmatics

“I regard the analogia entis as the invention of Antichrist, and I believe that because of it, it is impossible ever to become a Roman Catholic.”

If you consider Barth a bit more you’ll see nestorianism, which was soundly condemned at the second council of constantinople.

The problem with nestorianism really gets back to the gospel. If the person who died on the cross was not fully divine, how will our sins be forgiven?

In a certain sense I think Karl Barth is OK because I think he is the Protestant theologian par excellence and he really takes protestantism to its proper conclusions based on its principles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top