Neo-Evangelicalism On the Rise?

In a recent blog post at Chaos and Old Night (click on the title to go there) one of the bloggers suggested that there's nothing wrong with neo-orthodoxy per se and that universalism wouldn't keep anyone out of heaven. My own view is that Evangelicals should not be so enamored with being accepted by the larger academic world that they compromise the faith once delivered to the saints. The trouble with most Evangelical seminaries these days is that there is no commitment to the principles of the Protestant Reformation and no emphasis on classical theology. The result is that even in supposedly "conservative" seminaries there is little commitment to orthodoxy and little willingness to challenge neo-orthodoxy and liberalism headon. It's really a shame that so-called Christians are selling out to the other side.

My response to those saying that Karl Barth was a genuine Christian is posted below:

Dear John and John,

I will not apologize. I think it is you who owe me an apology. When I see a public apology posted I will do the same.

First of all, I'm completely justified in my views on Barth both rationally and biblically. If you think my theology is unorthodox, then you should demonstrate such.

Secondly, your baptist presuppositions are glaringly apparent and your ignorance of the Protestant Reformation are even more glaring. Practically no Reformer I know of would have put any individual on the same level as catholic, universally accepted doctrine that has its foundation in both the Bible and in solid orthodox tradition. In fact, many of the Reformed camp would say that creeds are as authoritative as Scripture when they are indeed faithful to Scripture. Thus, while the creeds may err, the onus is on the person who says they are in error to prove where they are in error.

Moreover, my reaction is completely justified since you have ignored the general consensus of the majority of conservative Evangelical scholars on the issue of Barth and other modern theologians. I have merely used the same sort of arguments used by Luther and Calvin who spoke in inflammatory ways to provoke thought. As Scripture puts it, all our righteousness is as filthy rags. Thus, those theologians who denigrate the conservative and classical worldview of Christianity, no matter how far they came back from the other side, are still heretical.

I would the first to admit that Pannenberg, Brunner, Barth, Bultmann, etc., et. al. borrow heavily from classical theology and at times even "sound" orthodox. This in no way justifies proclaiming that you know they are saved or that you don't "doubt" their salvation. Such arrogance is not only offensive, it's just plain wrong.

I didn't appreciate the fact that John Fraiser attacked me personally in the main body of his article on skepticism, implying somehow that I'm a blind dogmatist and that I accept what I believe uncritically. That is just plain wrong. In fact, my skepticism of the stated position on Barth's theology is what sparked this whole debate. It is I who am skeptical so the whole point of the article is rather ironic.

What does trouble me is the pretended charity when all the while your words are harsh, deprecatory and vitriolic. Your comments here in private only prove that.

I don't believe that we should throw out everything modern theology has to say because I believe in common grace and that God grants such grace even to the non-elect and that they can in some fashion use their reason to produce great works of art, science, and even theology. However, this is not to give a blanket endorsement to them as persons on their way to heaven OR their theology as a whole. Wherever Barth agrees with Scripture I agree with Barth. But the same can be said for Evangelical and classical Protestant theologians. My problem with the entire discussion is that Barth seems to be elevated beyond reasonable measure.

Additionally, I notice that you didn't answer even one of the concerns I raised nor did anyone even attempt to answer the quote from Carl Henry. You can accuse me of being ignorant, but I hardly think that charge can be applied to Van Til or Roger Nicole. Nicole's remarks about Van Til having read Barth's entire Dogmatics in German with lots of notes in the margins clearly shows that Van Til did his homework.

I may not have read huge volumes of Barth's work, but I have read some articles from Barth's work. Additionally, I've read Pannenberg's, Jesus, God and Man, several of Paul Tillich's works, and journal articles and books by Jurgen Moltmann, etc. I've read Niehbur, John Bright, etc., etc. I've also read Von Rad and Eichrodt. It's just plain silly to accuse me of not having read modern theology. I also regularly read whatever I can find by way of modern theological journals online. However, from my firsthand reading of the primary sources, I've found terrible gaffs made by renowned theologians that you so admire. Pannenberg, for example, says in Jesus, God and Man, that John Calvin advocated the satisfaction theory of the atonement. However, when reading the Institutes, III.4.27ff we find that Calvin actually advocated the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, as practically any student of Reformed theology knows offhand.

I've run across this sort of tactic many times before with the pentecostal/charismatic circles. If you don't like someone else's opinions you subtly imply they are blindly dogmatic wackos. Your comments below only confirm my original susicions about the the connotations of your remarks which were essentially concealed and implied. Why not just state what you mean plainly as you did below?

If you do not publicly apologize, I will be forced to post your comment below on my blog and to make it public. This is from one Christian to another. Perhaps my tone isn't what you're used to or what you like, but your gross misrepresentation of conservative theology calls for radical response.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie
----- Original Message -----
From: John & Annie Meade
To: Charlie Ray
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Barth doesn't determine what is orthodox or univerally accepted doctrine.

Charlie, I can understand your disagreement with what I and others have said in these recent posts, but disagreement must be handled in a Christian manner. However, your tone and behaviour is really what is inexcusable with comments like these: "then Barth's own theology is just so much intellectual exercise and about as useful for toilet paper as anything else. In fact, I would love to use his handwritten version of Church Dogmatics for toilet paper." or comments like "dead wrong" and your work in the sources (Barth, Moltman or otherwise) is what has been irresponsible with comments like these:

"If we're going to accept them as "orthodox" Christians who are saved, we might as well open the door to Mormons and oneness Pentecostals and Moonies as well."

Or your most recent comment:

"I'm absolutely certain that I'm skeptical of your sincerity. Hiding behind ambiguity and pretending your opponents are blindly dogmatic is convenient but not very convincing.
I am the first to admit that faith is just that–faith. Faith can't be empirically proven or demonstrated. I suppose if your worldview is postmodern, Barth makes perfect sense. After all, the supernatural doesn't happen and there has to be some sort of alternative."

"However, selling out to existentialism and relativism isn't an option for those of us who "believe" that revelation IS possible. If you're going to accuse me of being certain my view is the correct one, then I can just as well accuse you of the same if you are "certain" that I'm wrong. It's a bit silly for relativists to accuse conservatives of being naive about believing in absolute truths and propositional truths in divine revelation when the relativist is making the same sort of absolute claim in opposing propositional truth or revelation in written form. It is a bit contradictory to appeal to the ineffable in words, don't you think?"

Charlie, the fallacies you have committed here are ineffable, but non sequitor and hasty generalization quickly come to mind. Historically, Barth is not the inventer of liberalism. He comes in at the tail end of it, trying to reclaim the Bible. We may not agree with all he says, but to argue the way you are creates more heat than light. Charlie, John and I value your input on the blog, but right now you are showing yourself to be the ignoramus you disavow yourself of. Please go back and do your homework in the sources. Show John and I and the others where we are mistaken. We invite valid criticisms of our point of view--not the rantings of orthodoxy's defender. Please consider this e-mail a rebuke from one Christian to the next. John and I wanted to handle this in a private e-mail, and not on the blog. Personally, I would like to see a public apology on the blog from you. You have completely misunderstood Fraiser's theology in all the posts if you think he leans postmodern and doubts the supernatural revelation in Scripture and Christ. Furthermore, your comments towards Richard are less than charitable. Please think and pray about this suggestion.

John

Charlie's Reponse to John's attack:

First of all, I never said Barth was "liberal." I said he was neo-orthodox. Secondly, I never said that your friend Frazier denies the supernatural. However, he has capitulated to those who DO deny the supernatural. Neo-orthodoxy redefines Scripture as "myth" precisely because it denies that the supernatural is possible because of its Kantian assumptions about reality and revelation. I consider it a grave departure from the faith to endorse views implicitly which in turn deny the faith. I can never accept Barth or his theology as orthodox in any manner other than where he agrees with Evangelical views.

Charlie

On 8/7/06, Charlie Ray <mailto:guapoduck1959@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Quote from John Meade:

"I think we work from "materials" when we use the language of Nicea and Chalcedon. We are not appealing directly to Scripture, but we are borrowing the "grammar" of these previous theologians to present the truth today. Is it possible to think about the theology of Barth in this way? Are there aspects of his theology that we can utilise (always assuming they meet the criterion of Scripture) for our own theologizing? I think this step should be one of the most important when doing historical theology. What do you think?"

I think you are dead wrong and that you have a completely wrong understanding of how orthodox doctrine was established and how the ecumenical councils worked. First of all, most of the Reformed "confessions" of faith, including the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion, acknowledge that "creeds and council" can and do err and must constantly be checked by and against Holy Scripture. Furthermore, the creeds and ecumenical councils, particularly the first four ecumenical councils, which most of the Protestant Reformers and Protestant churches accept as valid, summarize what we believe the Bible teaches as essential doctrine. Sola Scriptura does not mean that creeds and councils are unimportant or that they do not offer to us binding doctrine. Quite the opposite is true. The creeds summarize the universally accepted essentials of the Christian faith AND what the Holy Scriptures teach on these matters as well.

ALL churches have an interpretation of Scripture and a formal creed or confession of faith merely puts it out there in writing for everyone to see. Even the non-credal churches have an "oral tradition" that summarizes their confessions of faith and credal positions. The Church of Christ, for example is non-credal but has certain doctrinal views on baptism and church membership, etc., that make it distinct from Southern Baptists.

In addition, it is a blatant and gross misunderstanding of creeds and church councils to equate the work of one modern theologian (Barth or any other idiosyncratic theologian) with the catholic or universally accepted doctrines of the Christian faith as established by representatives from regions all over the world of that time. There is a reason that Southern Baptists are trinitarian and that they use a canon of Scripture that includes 66 books, 39 OT and 27 NT. The reason is that Christianity universally accepted both of these views. The trouble with modern Evangelicalism is that it operates as if the past never happened and everything in between the NT era and today just doesn't exist.

It's been implied that I'm a blindly dogmatic ignoramus because I dared to oppose Barth's theology without spending ten years reading his works. Well, Barth may be important to today's theological dialogues and discussions. But Barth doesn't come close to establishing orthodoxy or catholic Christianity. Comparing Barth to universally accepted Christian essentials like the deity and humanity of Christ, the holy trinity, and the canon of Scripture is just inexcusable. Not only that, but it is just irresponsible.

Peace,

Charlie

Post Script

Apparently the distinction between common grace and efficacious or effectual grace isn't one recognized by more "modernist" evangelicals. Most of the Protestant Reformers and those following in that tradition would recognize that common grace works with even the unregenerate. Thus, non-Christians often produce great works of art, great scientific contributions, music, and even philosophy and theology. However, this is worlds apart from saying that neo-orthodox or liberal theologians are genuine Christians and on their way to heaven, particularly when those theologians promote univeralism and theological pluralism/relativism. It is just this sort of compromise that has led to the quandary we find ourselves in today with the issues facing mainline denominations regarding homosexuality and a denial of the authority of Scripture. Increasingly we're seeing this same sort of postmodernism creeping into Evangelicalism through the back door by way of the charismatic movement and the church growth movement. A commitment to sound doctrine and dogmatic theology seems to be unpopular and just too controversial. Anyone willing to challenge anyone else on this is just dismissed and ignored. It reminds me of the prophets of the OT who were ignored until judgment fell. May God bring a revival to our churches and to our nation. May we repent of our godlessness.

Peace.....

Charlie