Berkouwer on Van Til’s Critique of Barth

. . . My main objection to Van Til’s interpretation is not that he criticizes Barth. I criticize Barth also, and in this very book, but Van Til’s analysis does not correspond to the deepest intents of Barth’s theology. Hence it does not surprise me that Barth says in amazement that he cannot recognize himself at all in The New Modernism.

As I see it, the deepest ground of this unwarranted interpretation consists of this: that only particular parts of Barth’s theology come into consideration — a factor which makes for great onesidedness — and that the whole of Barth’s theology is not discussed in terms of all his writings. Hence the motivating lines of Barth’s development in contrast to modern theology and his great appreciation of Kohlbrugge do not become at all clear. Nor does it become clear why so sharp an attack upon him is being conducted by most of the prominent liberal theologians. Apparently they recognize that in Barth’s theology they are coming into contact with a form of theological thought which they cannot merely subordinate and work into their own theological system.

. . . Such is the problem of synthesis which Van Til, as I judge it, has not sufficiently seen. It is a problem which indeed plays a role not only in Barth. It is a general problem in the whole of the history of dogma. It applies — to mention no others — also to Augustine and Thomas. Anyone who undertook to judge of their theology on the basis of particular philosophical influences would simply have to arrive at a negative judgment, both of Augustine (Neo-Platonism) and of Thomas (Aristotle). But it is evident that the relationships are too complicated to permit of this kind of argumentation. . . .
- G.C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (London: Paternoster Press, 1956), 388-89.

Seeking God’s Heart

“If we seek God’s fatherly gentleness and His heart which is favorably disposed toward us, we must in the first place direct our eyes to Christ in whom alone the heart of the Father rests.” – John Calvin, Institutes, III, xxiv, 5.

The Chattering, Squinting, Stuttering Church

“It is the church which for the sake of security wants to construct an ontology before beginning theology; which instead of expounding the Bible gives itself with deadly seriousness to the problem of hermeneutics (to love of love instead of love itself!); which instead of speaking of the Word entrusted to it speaks constantly of the speech event; which constantly analyzes humanity instead of speaking simply and directly to it (because it knows what it wants and has to say). Supposedly to reach people where they are, this church is forever paying regard to them, adjusting to them, trying to win their attention and sympathy, attempting to be — or to appear to be — as pleasant as possible to them. It is the distracted and therefore the chattering church, the squinting and therefore the stuttering church.” - Karl Barth

The Old and New Testaments as Pointing to Christ

Here’s a neat quote from Barth on how the Old and New Testaments relate:

As regards handling of Old Testament texts, we maintain that for us the Old Testament is valid only in relation to the New. If the church as declared itself to be the lawful successor of the synagogue, this means that the Old Testament is witness to Christ, before Christ but not without Christ. Each sentence in the Old Testament must be seen in this context. Historical exegesis can and must be done, but at the same time we have to ask whether this exegesis does justice to the context in which the Old and New Testaments stand. Even in a sermon on Judges 6:3 it is possible both insist on the literal sense and also to set one’s sights on Christ. As a wholly Jewish book, the Old Testament is a pointer to Christ. As regards the justification of allegory, we have again to refer to the relation between the Old Testament and the New. In the Old Testament the natural sense is the issue. Preaching must bring out what the Old Testament passage actually says, but in a way that affirms the basic premise on which the church adopted the Old Testament. This does not mean that we will give the passage a second sense — just as we are not to oppose historical and Christian exposition to one another. Instead, we will see that this passage in its immanence points beyond itself. It is a signpost that gives us direction. The Old Testament points forwards, the New Testament points backward, and both point to Christ.
- Karl Barth, Homiletics Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Donald E. Daniels (Louisville, KY: WJK, 1991) 80-81.

Vanhoozer on Van Til and Barth (lots of names)

I should really be studying right now, but I couldn’t resist posting this quote. I have sometimes wondered, after hearing Van Tillian critiques of Barth, whether Van Til really understood Barth. Obviously, I don’t think Van Til completely misunderstood Barth (he probably understood him better than I do), but I do think that there are places, perhaps at the most fundamental level, where Van Til overlooked a few things. Here’s Vanhoozer:

Given Van Til’s well-known presuppositional apologetics, it is highly ironic that a faulty presupposition underlies, and hence undermines, his reading of Barth. Van Til reads Barth as being committed to a critical (i.e. Kantian) philosophy. Van Til seems not to have grasped the possibility that Barth may have had other, more properly theological, reasons for his dialectical approach. It has also been suggested that one reason behind Van Til’s “Barthian animus” is the apparent similarity between Barth’s theology and Reformed orthodoxy. Might it not also be because of a strong point of similarity between Barth and Van Til himsef? Many would place both thinkers together on the spectrum of contemporary theology: both were biblical fideists; both were uncompromising about their respective starting-points; both made the doctrine of the Trinity their key presupposition.
- Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “A Person of the Book? Barth on Biblical Authority and Interpretation,” in Sung Wook Chung ed. Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006),  30.

On Inerrancy

Shane and Andrew discuss some issues about Beale’s book on inerrancy here.

Some More Barth. . .

Going through some of Barth’s Church Dogmatics for a research paper, I’m reminded of why I like the Swiss theologian so much:

We can indeed say that God hates sin but does not cease to love the sinner. But it is only as we see God in Jesus Christ that we can really say this. (IV, 1: 406)

News Update

After having not posted for a while I’m finding it a little difficult to get back in the loop.

That is all.

“All this I did for thee; What wilt thou do for me?”: The Wrong Way to View Sanctification

Here’s an excellent quote from Barth on his section on sanctification. It’s not uncommon to see preachers guilting their congregants into “obedience,” and then wrongly calling the resulting work sanctification. Obedience that does not flow from faith in Jesus Christ (not an abstract ideal which can be replaced, but the concrete  Jesus Christ who is the incarnate Son of God) is neither true nor acceptable obedience before God:

. . . Far too often the matter has been conceived and represented as though His humiliation to death for our justification by Him as our Representative were His own act, but our exaltation to fellowship with God as the corresponding counter-movement, and therefore our sanctification, were left to us, to be accomplished by us. “All this I did for thee; What wilt thou do for me?” The New Testament does not speak this way. It knows nothing of a Jesus who lived and died for the forgiveness of our sins, to free us as it were retrospectively, but who now waits as though with tied arms for us to act in accordance with the freedom achieved for us. It is natural that He should be thought of in this way when it is overlooked and forgotten that He is not only the suffering Son of God but also the victorious and triumphant Son of Man. He is this, too, in our place and favour. (CD, IV. 2 p 516)

Except as Proclamation of the Gospel . . .

“Except as the proclamation of the Gospel pointed and applied, even the most serious talk about the will and command of God can only be idle chatter, for which a Church is not needed, which can be much better done outside the Church.” (CD, II.2 p 564)