Too contraversial for some here.

[Willie T]

This IS controversial. When I first read it, I balked, and almost shouted, "No way!"

But, since I personally know the man who wrote it, I took another look... and another. And, you know what? There is a frightening amount of truth to what he says here.

Now, I know this group, and I certainly don't expect some of you (several, in fact) to be able to get past even the first little bit. That's fine. Until God figures it may be time for you to see a few things a little more deeply, that will just have to be the way it stays.

But, I know a few of you will enjoy this. For you guys................
**************
Listen to Barth on what the Bible became in the aftermath of the reformation:

"The Bible was now grounded upon itself apart from the mystery of Christ and the holy Ghost. It became a 'paper Pope,' and unlike the living Pope in Rome it was wholly given up into the hands of its interpreters. It was no longer a free and spiritual force, but an instrument of human power." (CD I.2, p 525)

Once "authority" was taken out of the hands of a centralized, religious and political power structure, the church found herself in desperate need of one to whom she could defer; she needed a new "Pope", if you will. The Bible, which had prior to then been something only to be understood in the light of Jesus and of the nature of the Triune God, became an authority in its own right. It didn't require interpreting in light of anything, as the authority-less, post-reformation church turned *it* into the light.

It then quickly followed the path of all religious authorities who are given absolute power: it dominated and enslaved. Yet the oppression unleashed by its enthronement and deification was worse than any that pope or potentate could dish out, for this "paper pope" was able to be manipulated and made to say anything its interpreters desired for it to say.

Friends, whenever the Bible, and not Jesus, is Lord, oppression and enslavement will be present. The Bible is subject to the Living Logos, and not the other way around. Wherever the Spirit of Jesus is Lord, there will be liberty, but our evangelical idols must first be displaced.

 

[smaller]

The 'end game' so to speak has been clearly spelled out, and it is a bit disturbing to engage:

1 Cor. 15:
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

emph. on all.

Can we even begin to imagine how to engage such matters or the avenues that will take?

 

[Malachi]

Friends, whenever the Bible, and not Jesus, is Lord, oppression and enslavement will be present. The Bible is subject to the Living Logos, and not the other way around. Wherever the Spirit of Jesus is Lord, there will be liberty, but our evangelical idols must first be displaced.

Here's another example of creating a strawman, then trying to knock it down. The Bible is not "the idol" of evangelicals and fundamentalists. It is the written Word of God, therefore the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. That is how Christ and the apostles regarded the Scriptures.

Karl Barth was definitely NOT a biblicist, therefore Christians cannot rely upon him to help us hold to the authority of the Word. Here is a quote from Wikipedia regarding Barth:

His doctrine of the Word of God, for instance, holds that Christ is the Word of God, and does not proceed by arguing or proclaiming that the Bible must be uniformly historically and scientifically accurate, and then establishing other theological claims on that foundation.

If a man does not believe that the Bible is inspired, therefore inerrant and infallible, then he has little to say about truth. Indeed, many have made Barth into an idol. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 Jn 5:21).

 

[Malachi]

Also the mention of a "paper pope" appears to show that this article is from the Counter-Reformation (or related to it) which wanted to maintain the infallibility of the pope and the Vatican.

 

[smaller]

Barth never derided the scriptures, but the effectiveness of the handlers. And I think that's what WillieT is pointing out as well.

The scriptures have an uncanny ability to rise up various forms of power mongers who abuse it, as amply evidenced by history.

Barth fostered the legitimate view that the Word of God stands regardless based on its own uniqueness and Authority, and not the impositions and abuses of men who engage same.

Barth was particularly not in favor of limiting the text by forcing it through scientific or historical filters as primary sources of understandings because The Word transcends such attempts by the nature of it's Author.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

This IS controversial. When I first read it, I balked, and almost shouted, "No way!"

But, since I personally know the man who wrote it, I took another look... and another. And, you know what? There is a frightening amount of truth to what he says here.

Now, I know this group, and I certainly don't expect some of you (several, in fact) to be able to get past even the first little bit. That's fine. Until God figures it may be time for you to see a few things a little more deeply, that will just have to be the way it stays.

But, I know a few of you will enjoy this. For you guys................
**************
Listen to Barth on what the Bible became in the aftermath of the reformation:

"The Bible was now grounded upon itself apart from the mystery of Christ and the holy Ghost. It became a 'paper Pope,' and unlike the living Pope in Rome it was wholly given up into the hands of its interpreters. It was no longer a free and spiritual force, but an instrument of human power." (CD I.2, p 525)

Once "authority" was taken out of the hands of a centralized, religious and political power structure, the church found herself in desperate need of one to whom she could defer; she needed a new "Pope", if you will. The Bible, which had prior to then been something only to be understood in the light of Jesus and of the nature of the Triune God, became an authority in its own right. It didn't require interpreting in light of anything, as the authority-less, post-reformation church turned *it* into the light.

It then quickly followed the path of all religious authorities who are given absolute power: it dominated and enslaved. Yet the oppression unleashed by its enthronement and deification was worse than any that pope or potentate could dish out, for this "paper pope" was able to be manipulated and made to say anything its interpreters desired for it to say.

Friends, whenever the Bible, and not Jesus, is Lord, oppression and enslavement will be present. The Bible is subject to the Living Logos, and not the other way around. Wherever the Spirit of Jesus is Lord, there will be liberty, but our evangelical idols must first be displaced.

When it comes to Religion and statements about truth in general, there is usually always a power play at hand. A way to gain an edge or authority over another person, and this shouldn't be so with the Bible. The Bible needs to be rightly handled with humility and earnest study. I think where the writer goes wrong is that he doesn't acknowledge the existent authority that the Bible contains, so long as it is properly understood, as it is the word of God. Though it can only be wielded as authority to someone who is accountable and submitted to God who authored it.

We are subject to God, it's not as if the Bible is subservient to God, but rather a gift from God to the Church. The problem is not putting trust and faith in the Bible, the problem is where we forget about the God of the Bible and simply appeal to our own interpretation as being infallible.

 

[reba]

O boy here we go...

 

[Willie T]

Also the mention of a "paper pope" appears to show that this article is from the Counter-Reformation (or related to it) which wanted to maintain the infallibility of the pope and the Vatican.

I've read some good humor before, but this one takes the cake. You don't know too much about The Vineyard, I presume.

 

[Willie T]

Yes, we speak of an ideal world..... but, alas......

 

[th1b.taylor]

I agree and strongly disagree. In the case of Anti-Christ figures like Jim Jone and David Koresh, the Waco Wacko, this mini thesis is correct but that is what occurs when one is a pretender and is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit and pretends they can interpret the deep spiritual messages imbedded in the Word of God.

There is just one and only one way to interpret the Bible for any man or woman, from one language to another. After that work is completed by men or women, indwelt with the Holy Spirit, there is nothing for man to do but to read, pray and submit to the Holy Spirit, that He might show us what to understand.

Many rebuke this but the Holy Spirit is God indwelling us, Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic and on and on. Without the Spirit, I knew nothing of the meaning of thde scriptures but as soon as I was indwelt, two life events took place, at the same time. I suddenly saw through the gibberish I was baffled with and by before, as a Lost Man and I felt the undeniable need for the Public Profession of my my new relationship with God.

Now, all of that and yet... The Word of God, the Holy Bible must be the Last Court Of Arbitration until one of two events occur in a person's life; 1. They are Raptured or 2. They see our LORD descend and take command, over riding the ible forever.

And so, come Lord Jesus, soon!

 

[Willie T]

O boy here we go...

Not really. Many people will say, "This is what he said."... and will have misread the article. Much as, independently, we all do with the Bible.

 

[Willie T]

I agree and strongly disagree. In the case of Anti-Christ figures like Jim Jone and David Koresh, the Waco Wacko, this mini thesis is correct but that is what occurs when one is a pretender and is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit and pretends they can interpret the deep spiritual messages imbedded in the Word of God.

There is just one and only one way to interpret the Bible for any man or woman, from one language to another. After that work is completed by men or women, indwelt with the Holy Spirit, there is nothing for man to do but to read, pray and submit to the Holy Spirit, that He might show us what to understand.

Many rebuke this but the Holy Spirit is God indwelling us, Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic and on and on. Without the Spirit, I knew nothing of the meaning of thde scriptures but as soon as I was indwelt, two life events took place, at the same time. I suddenly saw through the gibberish I was baffled with and by before, as a Lost Man and I felt the undeniable need for the Public Profession of my my new relationship with God.

Now, all of that and yet... The Word of God, the Holy Bible must be the Last Court Of Arbitration until one of two events occur in a person's life; 1. They are Raptured or 2. They see our LORD descend and take command, over riding the ible forever.

And so, come Lord Jesus, soon!

Unfortunately, this leaves you saying I must not be indwelt because I disagree with what you believe you see... and me saying the same thing about you because you do not believe as I do. (Hypothetically, of course.)

And, in truth, on many issues, both could be right..... as God has something esoteric in mind for each.

 

[Malachi]

Barth never derided the scriptures, but the effectiveness of the handlers.

For all his claims to being a "Protestant theologian" Barth was cozying up to Rome. Why else would he deride the Bible as a "paper pope"?

Rome has always sought to elevate its "Tradition" to the same level as Scripture, and to add insult to injury, elevated the pope to be an "infallible voice from the Vatican". Rome bitterly fought the Reformers and the Reformation with the Counter-Reformation, and they hated Sola Scriptura. Hence the derisive term "paper pope". It looks like Barth had another agenda in mind.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Unfortunately, this leaves you saying I must not be indwelt because I disagree with what you believe you see... and me saying the same thing about you because you do not believe as I do. (Hypothetically, of course.)

And, in truth, on many issues, both could be right..... as God has something esoteric in mind for each.

That is always the case with people who hold to a too strong a position of the perspicuity of Scripture (the ease of being understood). The "it plainly states this, I asked God and he showed me," stance to Scripture ends discussions as such a person's interpretation is deemed nearly infallible. Any discussion of Scripture cannot be had, as the person seems to supernaturally understand the passage and those who disagree must simply not be listening to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

For all his claims to being a "Protestant theologian" Barth was cozying up to Rome. Why else would he deride the Bible as a "paper pope"?

I don't see this as cozying up to Rome, but rather him stating that Protestants made a mistake in the opposite direction, elevating the Bible too much and sometimes forgetting the Word of God, Jesus.

Rome has always sought to elevate its "Tradition" to the same level as Scripture, and to add insult to injury, elevated the pope to be an "infallible voice from the Vatican". Rome bitterly fought the Reformers and the Reformation with the Counter-Reformation, and they hated Sola Scriptura. Hence the derisive term "paper pope". It looks like Barth had another agenda in mind.

I don't see him elevating tradition, but rather Jesus in what he wrote. The only similarity in his post is the charge of making the Bible a Paper Pope, he did not share the same views on authorities as Roman Catholics.

 

[jasonc]

I think it the interpretations of the bible not the bible itself. rather then read it for what it does say we accept an out of context quote and build a doctrine upon that. ie osas, Calvinism, arminism, some views of baptism, the Holy Spirit baptism, end times.

 

[smaller]

For all his claims to being a "Protestant theologian" Barth was cozying up to Rome. Why else would he deride the Bible as a "paper pope"?

Boy, how you might dissect Barth and how I read him are two different worlds. Barth's paper pope comment had nothing to do with the text itself and everything to do with the obstinate abuses of it, legitimately critiqued.

As to various Roman theologians, I might suggest that much of what we accept today along the standard lines of sound theology came from their or early orthodox camps, and as such I respect 'some' of their findings simply because they were and remain truthful in dissection and concept.

A lot of freewill camps hated Barth because he took sides with some of the better Roman theologians who established that the overwhelming Grace of God can not reasonably be deemed out as a possibility for anyone. And that position remains somewhat contested even in RCC land. Granted however that how Barth saw that fact and how Roman theology saw that fact differed at it's core, one being freewill and the Reformed being determinist.

Rome has always sought to elevate its "Tradition" to the same level as Scripture, and to add insult to injury, elevated the pope to be an "infallible voice from the Vatican". Rome bitterly fought the Reformers and the Reformation with the Counter-Reformation, and they hated Sola Scriptura. Hence the derisive term "paper pope". It looks like Barth had another agenda in mind.

I think we all understand the fragility of various sacerdotal systems, and even though most of Protestantism claims not to be the same as RCC or EO sacerdotal systems we all still participate in some of it's basic precepts just as we for the most part agree on some of the more basic issues such as the Nature of God expressed through Trinitarian precepts. Sacramental understandings and the legitimacy of the delivery systems are quite diverse subjects in themselves.

 

[smaller]

That is always the case with people who hold to a too strong a position of the perspicuity of Scripture (the ease of being understood). The "it plainly states this, I asked God and he showed me," stance to Scripture ends discussions as such a person's interpretation is deemed nearly infallible. Any discussion of Scripture cannot be had, as the person seems to supernaturally understand the passage and those who disagree must simply not be listening to the Holy Spirit.

And that was exactly Barth's observation about what had transpired in Protestantism and his paper pope comments.

To me Barth raised the bar of Gods Word and Spirit to be rightfully above all comers.

 

[Mike S]

This IS controversial. When I first read it, I balked, and almost shouted, "No way!"

But, since I personally know the man who wrote it, I took another look... and another. And, you know what? There is a frightening amount of truth to what he says here.

It's hard for me to understand how anyone could read Barth and not find some truth. He's no more perfect than any of the rest of us, but he was spot on by warning against taking the humanness out of understanding the Bible. Our scriptures are the revealed knowledge of God, but presented to us through fallible human language.

 

[Malachi]

The Bible, which had prior to then been something only to be understood in the light of Jesus and of the nature of the Triune God, became an authority in its own right. It didn't require interpreting in light of anything, as the authority-less, post-reformation church turned *it* into the light.

Willie has presented this as the thoughts of some third party or some group which hold to these ideas.

But let's examine this closely and see if it lines up with Scripture.
1. "In the light of Jesus" -- this is an essentially meaningless statement. If anything it sounds Gnostic. But according to the Word of God, Scripture is to be understood through the "unction" or "anointing" of the Holy Spirit: "But ye have an unction FROM THE HOLY ONE, and ye know ALL THINGS... But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, AND YE NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as the same anointing teacheth you of ALL THINGS, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him" (1 Jn 4:20,27). This corresponds to what Christ said about the Holy Spirit guiding us into ALL TRUTH (Jn 16:13).

2. "and of the nature of the Triune God" -- once again, this is essentially meaningless. For Christ (who is the fulness of the Godhead bodily) and His apostles (and for us) Scripture is sufficient (Mt 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16,17). Christ defeated Satan with Scripture (Mt 4:1-11) and Paul said that we are to use the Sword of the Spirit against Satan and his evil spirits (Eph 6:10-18).

So if you stand back and think about it, this is another attack of Satan on Scripture and its authority. He attacked the Word of God first in Eden -- "Yea hath God said...?" (Gen 3:1-5). And he does come as an Angel of Light to deceive the unwary.