Three (and perhaps four) errors of “planned apologetics”/ Why “apologetics and polemics can only be an event and not a program”: (cf. 30-32)
1) Faith, taking unbelief seriously, “cannot take itself with full seriousness” and, “therefore, ceases to be faith” as it seeks to produce the event which is not in its ability to produce. 2) It, in error, thinks that the task of dogmatics is complete. “The theologian who gives himself to these crafts is obviously of the opinion that he has both the time and the authority to abandon the concern for dogmatics, and instead of working at the thing itself to begin to discuss it with others.” 3) It risks thinking the task with unbelief is done beyond the dissemination of its program. 4) (Though not listed with the other three, Barth perhaps concentrates most on this point) The true point of conflict is not with unbelief, but with heresy. “Because of its paradoxical nature, heresy is for faith an important factor… Unbelief in the form of heresy is for faith an important factor—which is not the case when it is present as pure unbelief. Because in heresy it is present as a form of faith, it must be taken seriously at this point, and there can and must be serious conflict between faith and heresy.”
Do you think Barth went too far by seemingly classifying Roman Catholicism and Modern Protestantism as heresy?
ReplyDeleteWas this intended to be in response to the post "Summary Reflections on 47-71"?
ReplyDeleteEither way, it would seem to me that he did go too far if he is classifying as heresy the doctrine of those who would at a base level affirm the early creeds. So to answer your particular question, no in regards to the Modern Protestantism he was treating, and yes in regards to Roman Catholicism. It does, however, seem that he is a bit more gentle with Roman Catholicism so far as the use of the word 'heresy' is concerned. But perhaps I am just trying to make him agree with my own inclinations. What do you think?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI guess I would need a clearer definition of heresy, which I either missed or he did not fully address. If 'heresy', in this sense, is the natural outflowing of the absence of the event--the church's ontological nexus of being, extrinsic to its otherwise mere humanness--then I think he made to strong a correlation between the event and our speaking of it. If, however, heresy is that which is misspoken about the event by those who may or may not exist under that unspeakable category--those who exist as the Church, as Christ's presence--then I agree. I do not think that there is always perfect correlation between what one speaks and what one is [participating in].
ReplyDelete