Almost a century ago, the greatest theologian of the modern era rejected the false dichotomy between evolution and biblical faith.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/karl-barth-says-yes-to-creation-and-evolution
Thanks to Wyatt Houtz (@postbarthian) for this great contribution. Heās much more familiar with Barth than I am, so questions should be directed to him. However, Iām happy to jump in when Iām able.
Thanks Brad! Glad to contribute -Wyatt
2 Likes
There never was a golden age. There is no point in looking back to one. The first man was immediately the first sinner.[4] -
Hi Wyatt
I have always had trouble integrating Karl Barthās philosophy (& theology) into the worldview that satisfies me as a scientist, but his quote you provided (above) makes me wonder if he and I were so far apart as I had once thought. I have always been more comfortable with the concept of Original Blessing rather than Original Sin; that is, Adam was the first human to have a mind that could support a conscience, and thus was the first of Godās creatures that was capable of sinning. The Jesuit, Teihard de Chardin, taught this but was severely reprimanded by the Vatican for doing so. Do you know what Karl Barth thought of Chardinās works?
Al Leo
1 Like
@aleo According to Barth, Genesis does not inform us the scientific process of how the human conscious came into being. So Barthās view is in line with what you said. Iām not an expert on teilhard de chardin but I know Barth is famous for calling him a āgiant gnostic snakeā! I think he said this based on TCās teaching on emanations, because Barth rejects natural revelation or theology from below. I donāt see any reason why Barth is opposing this point you made. Great thoughts! Thanks for sharing.
@postbarthian
So it seems that Barth agreed with the Vatican in āexilingā Teilhard to Peking and banning his books. [Giant agnostic snake, indeed!!] I am not familiar with Teilhardās teaching on āemanationsā. I alway thought TCās writings were purposely somewhat obfuscating so he could dodge the Vaticanās wrath when he was confronted, which was bound to happen. But it didnāt workāeither for himself or for Mathew Fox who also promoted Original Blessing. Of course, (in my opinion, at least) Fox has since strayed over the line of āsuper-liberalismā (into New Age theology??)
Al Leo
This is a fascinating discussion and Iād like to read more of TC. I donāt know that Barth ever agreed with the vaticanās actions towards TC. If I come across anything, Iāll let you know. -Wyatt
Barth is definitely feted by professional theologians that I come across. However in my opinionāone of a church laymanāhe suffers from being less-than-readable. I donāt know of other ordinary (even highly intelligent) Christians flocking to him either. And in the long run, a theologian is known by his influence on the greater church to include us ordinary folks. No, it seems that 20th century influence will be left to a slightly odder assortment: a tweedy Oxford don (Lewis), a scrappy German pastor (Bonhoeffer) and a gangly North Carolina evangelist (Graham).
Not many people understand Einstien but we are all influenced by him and his ideas. Barthās Church Dogmatics contains many small print sections that are challenging to understand but there are many theologians who explain Barth to lay people. Barth wrote a long Church Dogmatics but he wrote as many pages in other books that are targeted to lay people and even prisoners. His Deliverence to the Captives and Call for God contain sermons he gave to the Basle prisoners at the end of his life such as this one: Criminals With Him: A Karl Barth Sermon to the Basel Prisoners | The PostBarthian
Another book is Karl Barthās Evangelical Theology, which contains Barthās lectures in USA in the 1960ās. Many people cut their Barthian teeth on it. Hereās a list of Barth books Iāve compiled that will help you get going: Karl Barth Christmas Book Wishlist | The PostBarthian
@postbarthian
Toward the end of his life, TC wrote a few monographs that clarified his views much better than his more famous āPhenomenon of Manā. āThe Heart of Matterā is one such publication. Going back to the early Church, do you think that Irenaeusā idea of Felix Culpa might have some connotations along the lines of Original Blessing? I know it is not considered that way now.
Al Leo
Barth considered sin the āimpossible possibilityā that results from the sloth of man and is inexcusable. So I donāt think Barth would justify it by the good of redemption, or try to rationally solve it. Another theologian I like, JĆ¼rgen Moltmann thought that none of the solutions to the problem of theodicy solve it. We identify Jesus as the true man for us and in the crucifixion he is with us, Immanuel. So itās a hard problem. Barth does have a supra-supralapsarian view of election where Jesus alone stands before all history and that may be applied. Great thoughts though! I need to read more TC.
@postbarthian
In enlarging upon TCās idea of a recent Noosphere (which follows upon a 4+billion year old Biosphere), I find this provides a logical rebuttal for many arguments put forth by atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Stenger, etc.) that belief in a caring God is an intellectual ācop-outā. The following is an excerpt from Stengerās book, āGod and the Folly of Faithā p.44: āā¦we do not yet have a plausible physical model ā¦(for) the nature of consciousness. ā¦āthe door to some immaterial reality in human consciousness is still open a tiny crack,ā¦ā
āWhile a primitive morality can be found in animals and early humans that evolved biologically, our modern ideas of morality more likely evolved socially as humans found ways to overcome some of their animal instincts by force of intellect. Not only did these developments allow people to live together in some semblance of order, they also allowed us to use the ability to act cooperatively to obtain resources from the environment, to protect ourselves from predators and other natural dangers.ā [Italics his]
{Stenger agrees that human morality depended on use of intellect to overcome animal instincts, which restates my position that modern humanity began with the acquisition of conscience and a spiritual natureāan event which also initiated the Noosphere.}
Al Leo
1 Like
Wyatt, Can you tell us what was Francis Schaefferās biggest beef with Barth in this area? Was it that Barth rejected a literal āhistorical Adam,ā or something else? What do you think we know about Barthās view of Schaefferās position on a historical, cosmic fall?
Clarke Morledge
1 Like
I recently shared a correspondence between Barth and Schaeffer recently on my blog, and in the footnotes I have some links to Schaefferās responses to Barth: Karl Barthās Letter to Francis Schaeffer | The PostBarthian
Schaefferās opinion of Barth was poisoned by Van Til. Van Til spoke german and so he had early access to Karl Barthās writings long before they were available in english translation (so no one could verify his bombasitic misrepresentation of Barth). Van Til had a villainous (and some say slanderous) opinion of Barth, and he wrote two books on Barth that are commonly considered the worst books on Barth ever written. At one point Van Til said that Barth was the worst heretic of all time, which he later retracted and said that Barth made it possible to be a greater heretic than ever before. To learn more about this see ā'How Can an Elephant Understand a Whale and Vice Versa?ā The Dutch Origins of Cornelius Van Tilās Appraisal of Karl Barth" by George Harinck in Karl Barth and American Evangelicalism (ed. Bruce McCormack, http://amzn.to/1qkNa0B ). Schaeffer rejected Barth mostly based on second hand information from Van Til. It was also at a time when Schaeffer was more rationalistic and than loving.
So in short, Schaefferās beef with Barth was in large a misunderstanding of Barth, and also due to his overly rationalistic view of Evangelicalism that has imploded since his time.
1 Like
I wanted to express thanks for this article - clarifying some of Bathsā views and also detoxing some of the back story that caused Barth to be sidelined.
2 Likes
Thank you. Iām glad you enjoyed it.
Absolutely!!
I can disagree and agree with Mr Barth while i do believe that Adam was a real man he is also used figuratively as the ābeginning oneā. But did Adam really live as a REAL flesh and Blood person that had real live children???to that I say YES he did! 1st Corinthians 15:45-46 spells that out perfectly. their should be NO more questions about it!
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.