The first reference, highlighted below , is not where you say it is. It does not appear on page 123 of either 1.1. or 1.2.
OK I do not have a problem with how the Publisher placed the pages I have a problem with the mans theology. I care not if he carries your endorsement.
Let me ask you Barthian scholars a question or two: Would you place Barth in the same mold as Schleiermacher. Do you consider him (Barth) to be the father of
natural theology? Do you confirm that Barth was in agreement with Kant , especially as Kant is used in Ritschl ? What is Barth's stated - I said 'stated" -- belief on the place and function of written scripture and the Living Christ?
I already took a sip and found his theology PUTRID and now you want me to take a few gulps I have a strong desire to avoid his unpleasantness, NO THANKS!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first reference, highlighted below , is not where you say it is. It does not appear on page 123 of either 1.1. or 1.2.The Romans reference is not an attack on biblical scripture.Find the correct reference the Dogmatics and I will be glad to put it into the actual context.Let me ask you Barthian scholars a question or two: Would you place Barth in the same mold as Schleiermacher. Do you consider him (Barth) to be the father of natural theology? Do you confirm that Barth was in agreement with Kant , especially as Kant is used in Ritschl ? What is Barth's stated - I said 'stated" -- belief on the place and function of written scripture and the Living Christ? Do either of you have a clue, or are we just all talk? Quick -- see if the internet can be of some help !!!I mean, if you are going to own up to the bar -- fine and good. Let's talk shop. Kevin or Judy? Still there?Hello !!! ???That Barth believed in the resurrection is beyond doubt. That he believed that such a recorded historical event is beyond challenge is, also, quite clear, he didn't. For Barth, we accept the resurrection account by faith. More specifically, Barth, the person, believed in a literal resurrection of the death (and we are talking about the Christ.)Ditto for the written "word of God." We have taken the word "inspired" as applied to the protestant Bible and have created a teaching based on our view of logical necessity. We find no definition of scripture on TT or anywhere else, for that matter, that has any attachment to scripture. Scripture affirms itself to be "inspired" but gives not further discussion of the matter -- beyond the affirmation. Why? That should be an important question.Look at what we have done with our logical necessities. I mean, if God speaks or writes without error, then we can cram the resurrection, the miracles, the ascension , the notion of eternal Sonship and "God in the flesh" -- we can force all this down the collective throats of the unbeliever !! And in so doing, we assert that faith is not required !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Heck, verbal / plenary inspiration is a fact that we can prove with the same assurance and methodolgy as we can prove or demonstrate 2 = 2 = 4. Nonsense !!!!!!! To make this argument is to deny faith as faith AND to deny&nb sp;faith as it functions for the foundations of science and even mathematics !!! Before a fact becomes "scientific fact," what must transpire? Research !! Experiment after experiment. And what is the motivating factor in such a course? FAITH. The scientist believes in his quest and continues for no other reason than that.What drives the mathematician as he works on the TOE? FAith -- perhaps blind faith !!A postulate is what if it not a statement of faith ?? !!!It is as if we fear "faith" as the foundation of "inspiration" and, so, we make up stuff and punish those who disagree. Or, we just lie about the opposition.We have nothing to fear of "faith alone" when it is applied to biblical "inerrancy>" FAith is the single most important consideration in "what we intend to do next." Think about !!!jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)
Hero of the FAITHless?
"The Bible is God's Word so far as God lets it be his Word" (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I / 2, 123)
"THE WORD WHICH ENTERS HUMAN EARS AND IS UTTERED BY HUMAN LIPS, IS THE WORD OF GOD--ONLY WHEN THE MIRACLE TAKES PLACE. OTHERWISE, IT IS JUST A HUMAN WORD LIKE ANY OTHER. ... What stands there, in the pages of the Bible, is the witness to the Word of God ... God can be called truth only when 'truth' is understood in the sense of the Greek word 'aletheia'" (Barth, Romans).
"If you ask about God and if I am really to tell about him, dialectic is all that can be expected from me. ... Neither my affirmation nor my denial lays claim to being God's truth. Neither one is more than a witness to that truth which stands in the center, between every Yes and No. And therefore I have never affirmed without denying and never denied without affirming, for neither affirmation nor denial can be final. If my witness t o the final answer you are seeking does not satisfy you, I am sorry. It may be that my witness to it is not yet sufficiently clear, that is, that I have not limited the Yes by the No and the No by the Yes incisively enough to set aside all misunderstanding-- incisively enough to let you see that nothing is left except that upon which the Yes and the No, and the No and the Yes, depend. But it may also be that your refusal of my answer arises from your not having really asked your question, from your not having asked about God--for otherwise we should understand each other" (Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man, Pilgrim Press, p. 209).
http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_8.php
Karl Barth was asked did he have the same reservations about St. Joseph as about Our Lady. "Not at all" he replied; "I love St. Joseph. I rejoiced when John XIII inserted his name in the Roman Canon. I intend to ask Paul VI to give him prominence," and then a memorable word, "He protected the Child; he will protect the Church." More radically direct was the very sharp criticism of the Marian text by J.J. von Almen of Neuchatel University, Pastor of the Swiss Reformed Church, who held that the Council had no right to eliminate St. Joseph. He was the guarantor before Israel of the messianic tradition and he is the model of male sanctity as is Our Lady of female holiness.
"The assumption that Jesus is the Christ (1.4) is, in the strictest sense of the word, an assumption, void of any content that can be comprehended by us" (Barth, Romans, p. 36).
"THIS TOMB MAY PROVE TO BE DEFINITELY CLOSED OR AN EMPTY TOMB: IT IS REALLY A MATTER OF INDIFFERENCE." (Barth, The Resurrection of the Dead, p. 135).
"In a later letter to Gordon W. Clark, Carl F.H. Henry gave a pointed account of the occasion. When he, Henry, asked Barth whether the resurrection event was of such a nature in covering it, that it would have been regarded in the same sense in which the man on the street understands news, Barth became visibly angry and asked, sarcastically, 'Did you say Christianity Today or Christianity yesterday?' He then continued by saying that 'the resurrection of Jesus had significance only for His disciples,' implying that it had no significance to the world. The religious editor of United Press International, Louis Cassels, said upon leaving, 'We got Barth's answer; it was 'Nein' [the German word for 'no']' (Gordon H. Clark, Historiography--Secular and Religious, The Craig Press, 1972, reprinted in Christian News Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 1480).Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments know nothing of the distinction of fact and value between history on the one hand and saga and legend on the other (I, 2, 509).In common with the creation storythe history of the resurrection has to be regarded as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection (IV, 1, 336).The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious or theological content (I, 1,509).The "legend" of the finding of the empty tomb is not of itself and as such the attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself alive after his death. It is ancillary to this attestation. The one can be as little verified "historically" as the other. Certainly the empty tomb cannot serve as an "historical" proof (IV, 1, 341).The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office,? were real historical men as we are, and ? Actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word (Church Dogmatics, I, 2, 528-529).
Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com> wrote:I know he would not pledge allegiance to Hitler which is noteworthy but the very fact that Hitler and his occult socialist system gained that much control in his country somewhat proves the impotency of his message. He did teach at a University there - right? So he influenced others with his unbelief. God judges Barth the man. I evaluate Barf the theologian who does not believe God's Word to be inerrant.On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:05:01 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Your use of "Barf" is both a contradiction to your shallow claim that you do not judge Barth and a clear statement to the fact that you know nothing of what this man believes and the concerns he dealt with in his battle against liberal theologies (among other considerations.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:46:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf for Karl Barth)
I am not in any position to judge Barf's personal life and neither are you Lance. Calvins' was a bit more public.And didn't you write the following "I've met the 'Huntmeister' and, we spoke. He's big into this 'end times' drivel. . "Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, isn't the above a truly shallow, petulant, and uniformed caricature & reprehensible?On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:35:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:This man served our Lord faithfully throughout his life as did John Calvin. To take note of these truly shallow, petulant, and uniformed caricatures is reprehensible. What 'spirit' inhabits such an one as this? Take care Judy"From: Judy TaylorFootnotes?? Only if the original thought makes any sense. Barf definitely would not qualify.On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 06:06:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:One would not have thought you so easily impressed, Judy. Ya wants footnotes? May I suggest Karl Barth? I've met the 'Huntmeister' and, we spoke. He's big into this 'end times' drivel. .
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
