tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post3411377560193601934..comments2023-11-02T22:17:59.419+11:00Comments on Sydney Anglican Heretics: History a Warning to Sydney Episcopalian Diocese (Part 5)Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04827951993182450846noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post-37468451459975017312010-09-05T19:49:17.192+10:002010-09-05T19:49:17.192+10:00Oops, again. That last comment should have read:
...Oops, again. That last comment should have read:<br /><br />Eric, I just can't get it right in my mind about the first name of the character in "Being There". It may have been "Chauncy" not "Quincy".<br /><br />Doesn't make any difference to the tendency for certain Anglicans to defer to the thoughts of that type of character.<br /><br />Neilneil moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04381046852732380906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post-28148503574060081872010-09-05T19:47:14.754+10:002010-09-05T19:47:14.754+10:00Eric, I just get it right in my mind the first nam...Eric, I just get it right in my mind the first name of the character in "Being There". It may have been "Chauncy" not "Quincy".<br /><br />Doesn't make any difference to the tendency for certain Anglicans to defer to the thoughts of that type of character.<br /><br />Neilneil moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04381046852732380906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post-17429775745944461372010-09-03T22:49:46.715+10:002010-09-03T22:49:46.715+10:00Perhaps we should refer to Barthians as Gardeneris...Perhaps we should refer to Barthians as Gardenerists!Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04827951993182450846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post-9061682200982420872010-08-28T01:16:03.335+10:002010-08-28T01:16:03.335+10:00Yet SAD's revere this man Barth just as that &...Yet SAD's revere this man Barth just as that 'intellectual' (was it?) Quincy Gardener in the movie "Being There", captivated the minds of the world's leaders.<br /><br />Neilneil moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04381046852732380906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post-37951085390070742502010-08-27T10:09:08.596+10:002010-08-27T10:09:08.596+10:00What else characterises Barth's theology?
1. ...What else characterises Barth's theology?<br /><br />1. His ancestral line includes Kierkegaard. (Not surprised there!)<br />2. A mysticism: “Our task is to interpret the Yes and the No and the No by the Yes without delaying more than a moment in either a fixed Yes or a fixed No.” Again, “The truth lies not in the Yes and not in the No, but in the knowledge and the beginning from which the Yes and the No arise.” But there's more: “Our Yes towards life from the very beginning carries within it the Divine No which breaks forth from the antithesis and points away from what now was the thesis to the original and final synthesis. The No is not the last and highest truth, but the call from home which comes in answer to our asking for God in the world.” And finally, “We are not capable of making reality correspond to what we say...God alone can do that. We shall not settle the mind of God, however neatly we settle the dialectic of the thought of God. That the question is the answer, the No the Yes, that doom is grace, that death is life – this may all be true, but it is not true because we think it and say it...There is no way from us to God.”<br />As that world-famous philosopher once said, “Holy Hegel, Batman!”<br />3. With profundities like the above, no wonder Barth could never understand how the Creator could ever reveal himself: “The finite is not competent enough for the infinite.”<br /><br /><br />Call me old fashioned, but God's revelation is far less complex than Barth was pretentiously making it out to be. <br /><br />SADs, once again, you've been led away by the philosophies of men and not by the plain revelation of God. You prefer to believe that the world is ancient, that life preceded man by billions of years, that even life evolved by God winding it all up and, apart from a few miracles here and there, let the earth by itself bring forth everything, just like the pagans believe.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post-26654863059917622812010-08-25T23:08:49.296+10:002010-08-25T23:08:49.296+10:00Barth is influential in the Diocese of Sydney but ...Barth is influential in the Diocese of Sydney but as Sam has provided via Machen, Barth leads traditional evangelical conservatism down a dead-end on the historical Jesus Christ and provides errant justification for rejecting the historical narrative of Genesis.<br /><br />Neilneil moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04381046852732380906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post-82934916975687648682010-08-25T11:04:15.304+10:002010-08-25T11:04:15.304+10:00I've read very little of Barth, and even less ...I've read very little of Barth, and even less I can claim I understand (always a worry!), but his views on creation are vacuous and merely took the form of an exposition of Genesis 1 and 2. He did not grapple with, as far as I am aware, the science, and this fits in well with his quasi-gnostic attitude to faith. He also borrowed that rather unfortunate Enlightenment attitude of separating Scripture from the real world, of theology and science being non-overlapping areas of knowledge.<br /><br />One other factor which may give an understanding of what was inside Barth's mind was his earlier attraction to the Kantian Wilhelm Herrmann. Although Barth divorced himself from Herrmann after he'd lent overt support for the First World War, one can't imagine that Kant didi not continue to have a lingering affect. Kant's “decisive” argument against natural theology by way of his anti-Design Argument was, and is, instrumental in paving the way for evolution to take hold in our modern society. Perhaps this also explains why SADs hold the traditional view of creation, of a young world, with such disdain. After all, as this thread has stated, Barth is very popular among SADs leading “lights”.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.com