Mormons want the word or term Christian to be identified with them. Generally, Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxers don’t want to extend the word or term Christian to Mormons.

What I’m learning is that fighting for language, fighting for words, fighting for definitions, fighting for meaning, fighting for objective meaning … really, really matters!

Eg., the fight over the term or word or concept of marriage.

Linguistic or semantic fisticuffs is necessary, and dare I say it, even good.

Look at the fights over the Bible and what it means, what the original authors mean, what the proper hermeneutic is, and on and on and on.

Shepherds and wolves have to fight. True shepherds and false shepherds have to fight. Fighting is okay. Have you ever heard the phrase: “Fight the Good Fight”?

I don’t know. Perhaps you are right. I have noticed that some folks take pains to emphasize that they are “Reform Christians” or “Reform Evangelicals” to differentiate themselves away from the generic “Evangelical.”

I’m sorry, but anyone who says that sort of thing and then lumps all “leading” 19th century German philosophers and theologians into the category “post-enlightenment” in order to reject them without critically appraising individual thinkers really confuses me. (Not to mention that your rejection of Plato would make the writings of the Fathers look like Jefferson’s Bible). I thought we were coming from somewhere somewhat similar, but that seems to not be the case, so I have to give up on this attempt at dialogue regarding Barth. My apologies.

I was merely pointing out why I didn’t understand what you were talking about at first (and why you were being unnecessarily condescending), not saying that you didn’t explain yourself later on.

Also, I don’t think that you have encountered much of any sympathetic analysis of Barth, given that you are using Maslow to explain him. And I have no idea why “post-enlightenment” and “historically-Christian” are mutually exclusive categories. Was Augustine not historically Christian because he was a bit of a Platonist? It’s not that there can’t be a legitimate critique of Barth; I just think that you’re trying to turn a molehill into a mountain and undercutting your attempted critique by doing so.

To be more precise, Barth followed Origen’s three-fold account of the Word of God: It is Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the preached word. Only the last of those is, for us, fully the word of God, and that is the word of God to us now in “preaching” (contemporaneous with us, as Kierkegaard would say – not necessarily literally preached). In this way, the Holy Spirit makes Jesus present to us, especially ethically, Barth taught.

Also, as critics of NT Wright have pointed out, there are about 73 (I know, that number again) different kinds of “dualism” – mind-body, spirit-nature, good-evil, God-world, human-animal – among others. So, no, dualism didn’t explain anything either.

And what does “post-enlightenment” explain? It could mean anything from DA Carson to Jacques Derrida to Thomas Jefferson to Marshall McLuhan, depending on what you mean by it.

Also, you should have just said that your problem was with Barth’s doctrine of Scriptural inspiration, rather than with “dialectic.” It didn’t make you seem more knowledgeable to use a big word like that instead of being direct.

No. My problem, as I stated clearly, is *first* with his dualistic approach. One of the results of that is his messed up doctrine of inspiration. So please learn to read.

(It’s not that you did not understand right away. It’s that you bypassed some clear statements. I offered an alternative right away ["post-enlightenment"] and more in the next. But ignoring these seems to be convenient.)

You’re shocked that these would be classed as errors and heresies? I do wonder if you have read much evangelical analysis of Barth. Much at all, else you would not be at all shocked to hear this. Unless of course, you perhaps see inspiration as relatively unimportant.

Also, you should have just said that your problem was with Barth’s doctrine of Scriptural inspiration, rather than with “dialectic.” It didn’t make you seem more knowledgeable to use a big word like that instead of being direct. I wasn’t objecting to your explanation of what you meant by “dialectic” when you finally offered it, but only to the fact that you acted as if it was my fault for not understanding you right away.

Finally, I’ll just note that I am not a Barthian by any means (so I’m not stuck within some system of his), even though I see a lot of value in some of his dogmatic theology; I’m just a bit shocked that you would claim that he is guilty of “errors and heresies.”

It is tough to avoid vagueness and generalizations in blog comments. They are not, after all, places for substantive essays.

What I’m observing here is that you are reading Barth from within Barth, and not with external criticism in mind. It also appears that you are unwilling to accept that I clarified the term dialectic with something which I suspect many might deem more appropriate.

Yes, the simple generalization of “dialectical” is insufficient. I’ve not read McCormack, but enough of Barth and enough of historic orthodoxy to understand the problem.

Am I out of my league to suggest that Barth’s dualisms resulted in his unique and problematic view of inspiration? To suggest that inspiration is merely subjective ought to be problematic, and would certainly have been so to the reformers, likely even more than to us.

Scripture is holy and the Word of God because by the Holy Spirit it became and will become to the Church a witness to divine revelation.
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2, tr. and ed. by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), p. 457.

Perhaps it is you who might consider a cessation from presumption.

Thank you for finally saying something instead of lobbing unproven accusations. To be honest, I think you’re a bit out of your depth in criticizing Barth. I am familiar with two main ways in which Barth can be read “dialectically”: Against Balthasar’s notion of analogy and with McCormack’s reading of the veiledness/unveiledness aspect of Barth’s crucicentric Christology. I’d suspect that you’re referring to something like what McCormack discusses, but I am surprised that, as one who holds to a “reformation principle” you would attack an essentially Lutheran position on revelation.

Also, if you don’t think that systems should be used to read Scripture, what do you do with Law and Gospel? But, you might protest, that is there in Scripture! So, Barth would contend, is his own “system” insofar as he has one (though I’m fairly shocked that you would call Barth of all theologians systematic – something that he tried to avoid being).

By the way, please don’t assume that the fact that people don’t understand your own vague and unconventional use of terms means that they are just ignorant. See, for instance, Michael Beintker’s claim (discussed in McCormack’s Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology) that there are 4 distinct kinds of “dialectic” that one can find in the second edition of Barth’s Romans commentary alone. So shouting “dialectic” over and over again is not helpful and only leads me to think that you’re bluffing because you have no actual argument and didn’t expect anyone to call you out on it.

I only say that they are 73 kinds of ‘dialectic’ as a hyperbolic reference to just how many there are. It’s one of those words that says almost nothing these days.

As for Barth, I am familiar with the term ‘dialectic’ being opposed to Balthasar’s use of ‘analogy,’ but I suspect that you would rather not let Barth become Catholic or anything by letting go of ‘dialectic’ in that sense; so I couldn’t believe that that was what you were talking about. As for it being a system that dictates his reading of Scripture, it is pretty much entirely derived from Luther and Kierkegaard, who I suspect you don’t accuse of errors and heresies. Speaking of such systems, surely you’ve heard of Law and Gospel? Also, I would never have called Barth “historicist.” I’m not sure what that even means (or what connection at all there is between Barth and Marx, other than the fact that Barth was a socialist).

And I have to admit that I find it a bit rude of you to accuse me of not knowing about Barth because I didn’t understand a very vague insinuation about ‘dialectic.’ I’ve read a few volumes of the Church Dogmatics as well as secondary authors including McCormack, Hunsinger, Webster, etc.; and your assumed notion of ‘dialectic’ being opposed to Scripture just doesn’t line up with anything I’ve read there. I suspect that you’re bluffing to cover up an ill-advised accusation about Barth.

Barth,as I understand it, disliked the term “dialectical” as representing an accurate description of his approach. That is why I allowed what I think is a more accurate categorization — post-enlightenmentz — to describe his dualisms. And that is the problem. It goes to how he approaches God. His paradoxical approach creates an issue for it seems he just cannot fully escape (at least not methodologically) the historicism which he rejected. Instead of fully rejecting the error of his contemporaries he proceeds to introduce this new dualistic method, contrary to historical theology. This is Barth’s new orthodoxy, a system which he imposed upon Scripture. That is his error and heresy.

I’m familiar with something like 73 different uses of the word ‘dialectical,’ and none of them that I can recall directly pertain to heresy. Could you be more clear as to Barth’s doctrinal error?

I’m not in full agreement with Barth’s theology, and I’m certainly not a follower of Campolo; I merely think that these sorts of accusations need to be backed with at least some evidence. As of right now, you might as well have called these people ‘poopyheads’ or ‘loserfaces’ with the lack of substantive critique (or even a hint of such) that has been demonstrated thus far.