Re: [asa] The Barr quote - Barth and revelation

A few comments on this -

1) It's important to make distinctions among the possibilities for (a) natural evidence for God, (b) natural knowledge of God & (c) natural theology. I.e., one can agree that there is some evidence in the natural world which in principle should point to God without thinking that people are capable (because of sin or otherwise) of learning from that evidence. & one can agree that people can have some knowledge that there is a God from the natural world without thinking that that makes possible the development of a theology. The distinction between the latter two was made later by Brunner & in the Church Dogmatics Barth recognizes that there are passages of scripture which suggest the at least evidence if not knowledge, but denies that they can lead to any genuine theology.

2) It is crucial to bear in mind that what is being discussed here - without always making the necessary distinction - is an independent natural theology -i.e., one which is developed with no reference to revelation (or "special revelation" if one insists on the term). That is very different from the idea that if we start with God's revelation in Christ we can then look at the natural world and learn something further about the presence & activity of that God in the world. Torrance developed the latter idea as a positive completion of Barth's essentially negative view of natural theology, & says that in conversation with Barth in his later years the latter accepted the idea.

3) Independent natural theology may be able to tell us at most that there is a God but not who that God is - i.e., that it isn't the type of deity shown to us in the cross of Christ. Because of that we naturally jump at the chance to fill in the character of God with what we think God should be - i.e., to construct an idol. That's precisely the point that Paul makes in Romans 1 which is not, as is so commonly thought, an argument for natural theology.

4) Barth's negative view of natural theology was influenced not only by the idea of Uroffenbarung prominent among Christians sympathetic to Hitler but to the whole history of Christian thought which shows the serious dangers of acceptance of an independent natural theology - which easily evolves into a natural anti-theology.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] The Barr quote - Barth and revelation

> Hi David,
>
> Yes, Barr took some strong objection to Barth's position on revelation
> and natural theology (NT).
>
> Indeed, he uses the infamous Brunner/Barth debate on the subject of NT
> as one of the points of departure of his Gifford Lectures of 1991.
>
> As I read it, Barr takes the view Barth's view of NT was inconsistent
> with scripture - indeed, that Barth had allowed a theological
> pre-commitment to determine possible interpretations of scripture and
> what it had to say on NT. Barr does allow that this theological
> pre-commitment was no whimsical fabrication on Barth's part (one must
> not forget Barth's context - as a theologian of the confessing church in
> opposition to Nazism), but he is quite certain that it leads Barth to
> give less attention than he should have to those passages of scripture
> which seem to give place to some sort of NT.
>
> In short, my understanding of Barr's position is that he thinks that
> Barth's theory of revelation should have lead - on the basis of the
> scriptural witness - to a higher view of NT than Barth, in fact, evidenced.
>
> Perhaps Barr's most succinct comment on Barth's view of NT is found in
> the following footnote;
>
> <quote>
> Barth's assumption that the authority of scripture implies the denial of
> natural theology is obvious in many places, e.g. Natural Theology, 82,
> 87, 107, etc. He repeatedly (and absurdly) attacks Brunner for denying
> the supreme authority of scripture, as well as for upsetting the
> principles of sola gratia and cola fides. In Natural Theology there is
> no attempt on Barth's side to consider as a real question whether
> scripture might sanction or imply natural theology. (Barr, James.
> Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. p.20n31)
> </quote>
>
> Such, in very cursory terms, are Barr's views on Barth. And perhaps
> needless to say his Gifford Lectures were an attempt to move forward the
> project of NT after it had stalled due to an undue reverence for
> Barthian views on the matter.
>
> I will say, though, that to give a thorough coverage of Barr's
> interaction with Barth would require a precis of Barr's entire book!
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
> > Murray, thanks for this thorough review. You quoted Barr as follows:
> "This is so because, if we are to ask what the Bible 'properly' is, as
> distinct from 'transferred' terms like 'the Word of God', we would have
> to say, as I wrote long ago, not revelation coming from God to humanity
> but the Church's (properly: Israel's and, later, the Church's) response
> to and interpretation of that revelation."
> >
> > I respond: clearly, I need to know more about Barr than I do. Is
> Barr here taking essentially a post-Barthian neoorthodox view of revelation?
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 19 19:20:52 2008