On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it [theology] as a science, namely,the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatlydisowned as theology" (Dogmatics, 1.1, The word of God, pp. 9,10).So the late Barth did or did not believe theology is a science?Is this what he said all that to say?When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments, they cannot possibly understand what Barth isall about. He is as "conservative" as one gets - if being centered in the Word is a definition of same.Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Ppl can be conservative and well meaningand still be dead wrong.Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to considertheology as a "science"How is it possible for theology to be a science when observation is the key to science?So how does one observe God?1. freedom from contradictionThe Bible is already free from contradiction with or without Barth2. Unity in the sphere of its object. [read: subject matter].That's sadly lacking - on TT at least, I guess Barth would have been unified with himself.3. The willingness to accept request for verification.Who would he verify with?4. Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible.What is impossible with God?5. Freedom from all prejudgments.6. The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions].Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic.[] are my additions.jd
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
