Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 16:2 (May 1954)
Article: Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?
Author: Cornelius Van Til

WTJ 16:2 (May 54) p. 135

Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?

Cornelius Van Til

THE Theology of Crisis continues to be of great interest to orthodox Christians. By orthodox Christians we mean those who believe in historic Christianity. In particular we are thinking of all Protestants, whether Lutheran, Arminian or Reformed in their theology, who subscribe to the infallibility of Scripture and therefore to the idea of temporal creation, the historicity of the Genesis account, the substitutionary atonement through Jesus Christ the son of man and son of God and his bodily return on the clouds of heaven to judge the living and the dead.

All of these orthodox Christians hoped and some of them believed that in Karl Barth and Emil Brunner there had arisen in the Christian church of the modern day two great expositors and defenders of the historic Christian Faith. In more recent times many of these Christians have been disappointed in Brunner. Has he not openly and constantly denied the virgin birth of Christ? Does he not profess to be an adherent of a radical school of negative biblical criticism? Does he not frankly espouse the teachings of modern evolutionary theory? But these same Christians are now pinning their hopes and expectations on Barth. Granted that he has in the past held to some views that were out of accord with the historic Christian Faith, is he not now working in the right direction? Does he not now at least assert that the Bible is and not merely contains the word of God? Does he not, over against Brunner, strongly affirm the virgin birth of Christ? Granted that in the past Barth did not stress sufficiently the historic character of Christianity does he not now at least maintain, against modern subjectivism, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is very God and very man? Does he not maintain that the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are real historical events? And does he not vigorously oppose Rudolf Bultmann’s theory to the effect that the

WTJ 16:2 (May 54) p. 136

Genesis account gives us religious myth alone and that the resurrection of Christ is based merely on the belief of the disciples? Surely, these Christians say, whatever he may have been, Barth is now altogether or largely orthodox. At least he must be ranked among the believers in and the defenders of the historic Christian Faith. He is our friend not our foe. Even if we do not agree with him on some individual point of doctrine we should welcome him into our ranks as helping us to propagate in modern language the old Christian Faith among those who oppose it but who may be won to a belief in it. We must learn to appreciate those who hold the like precious Faith with us even though they give a different emphasis when they express it. Here is a great defender of the theology of...