I still find myself bothered by the comments of a seminarian from an allegedly "conservative" Southern Baptist seminary I will not name. The seminarian contended that he "had no problem with saying that Karl Barth was saved."
While the legitimacy of Barth's theological work does not necessarily depend on whether or not he was a genuine Christian--since the natural gifts given in the divine image and likeness of God in humankind gives great intellectual ability to even the non-elect--it is very significant that Barth was more than once accused of an "implicit" universalism in his theology. More importantly, Barth never denied this charge. While many accuse those of us who are concerned by Barth's theological errors of being "certain without knowledge," it is general knowledge readily available in quotes and in many secondhand sources on the internet and in theological journals that Barth indeed had universalist themes underlying his theology.
Thus, it is not a logical fallacy to come to legitimate conclusions about a theologian's work based on "common" knowledge, that is, knowledge that is generally known to be accurate. It's rather like knowing the Protestant Reformation happened in the 16th century or that John Calvin was an advocate of double predestination. One may quibble about the details, but the general facts do not change any more than gravity will disappear.
Thus, those of us who are orthodox, confessing Evangelicals within the Protestant mainstream are rationally justified in doubting Barth's salvation. Why? First off, universalism is a heresy that says that people who do not make a conscious conversion to faith in Jesus Christ as God our Savior are able to be saved regardless of whether or not they have converted to Christian faith. If this is not true, then it leads even more people who do not know Christ away from conversion and thus to hell. It follows, then, that Barth led people astray with a false sense of security when they should have been evangelized with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is particularly true of theological liberalism which utilized Barth's theology to shore up their own universalist and inclusivist theologies.
Thus, I have to doubt the salvation of anyone who would "have no problem" with a theologian who deliberately led people astray. Even more telling is the fact that Barth consciously and deliberately rejected the Gospel as understood by Evangelical and Protestant Christians. Barth practically mocked Evangelicalism at times. Pride goes before destruction. I wonder if Barth is so proud now? I suppose only God knows the answer to that question.
It is not popular to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." However, the apostles all gave their lives for the Christian faith. Jesus Christ himself died a sinner's death on the cross to atone for all our sins, even though he was an innocent man. Furthermore, Jesus said that anyone who is not willing to forsake all and follow after him is not worthy of the kingdom of God.
Those who seek intellectual prestige among godless and liberal scholars and theologians more than seeking after the truth and defending the faith have committed a form of idolatry where man's opinion takes precedence over divine revelation in Holy Scripture, which is the final authority in all theological matters. It is to exalt reason above revelation. Barth's major fallacy is to do the same despite his denials of such. Barth's theological method essentially places his own reasoning and philosophical views above the written word of God's revelation in Holy Scripture.
May we never forget that God gave us our intellect as part of the image and likeness of himself. Let us use it to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
While the legitimacy of Barth's theological work does not necessarily depend on whether or not he was a genuine Christian--since the natural gifts given in the divine image and likeness of God in humankind gives great intellectual ability to even the non-elect--it is very significant that Barth was more than once accused of an "implicit" universalism in his theology. More importantly, Barth never denied this charge. While many accuse those of us who are concerned by Barth's theological errors of being "certain without knowledge," it is general knowledge readily available in quotes and in many secondhand sources on the internet and in theological journals that Barth indeed had universalist themes underlying his theology.
Thus, it is not a logical fallacy to come to legitimate conclusions about a theologian's work based on "common" knowledge, that is, knowledge that is generally known to be accurate. It's rather like knowing the Protestant Reformation happened in the 16th century or that John Calvin was an advocate of double predestination. One may quibble about the details, but the general facts do not change any more than gravity will disappear.
Thus, those of us who are orthodox, confessing Evangelicals within the Protestant mainstream are rationally justified in doubting Barth's salvation. Why? First off, universalism is a heresy that says that people who do not make a conscious conversion to faith in Jesus Christ as God our Savior are able to be saved regardless of whether or not they have converted to Christian faith. If this is not true, then it leads even more people who do not know Christ away from conversion and thus to hell. It follows, then, that Barth led people astray with a false sense of security when they should have been evangelized with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is particularly true of theological liberalism which utilized Barth's theology to shore up their own universalist and inclusivist theologies.
Thus, I have to doubt the salvation of anyone who would "have no problem" with a theologian who deliberately led people astray. Even more telling is the fact that Barth consciously and deliberately rejected the Gospel as understood by Evangelical and Protestant Christians. Barth practically mocked Evangelicalism at times. Pride goes before destruction. I wonder if Barth is so proud now? I suppose only God knows the answer to that question.
It is not popular to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." However, the apostles all gave their lives for the Christian faith. Jesus Christ himself died a sinner's death on the cross to atone for all our sins, even though he was an innocent man. Furthermore, Jesus said that anyone who is not willing to forsake all and follow after him is not worthy of the kingdom of God.
Those who seek intellectual prestige among godless and liberal scholars and theologians more than seeking after the truth and defending the faith have committed a form of idolatry where man's opinion takes precedence over divine revelation in Holy Scripture, which is the final authority in all theological matters. It is to exalt reason above revelation. Barth's major fallacy is to do the same despite his denials of such. Barth's theological method essentially places his own reasoning and philosophical views above the written word of God's revelation in Holy Scripture.
May we never forget that God gave us our intellect as part of the image and likeness of himself. Let us use it to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Posts
