I suspect that a combination of factors renders Barth particularly susceptible to this kind of thing: (1) Barth is often called the greatest theologian of the past century even by those who regret it, so author’s feel a certain obligation to say something about him; (2) Barth wrote a lot. Who can read it all? Barth once told an audience that he himself had not yet read all he had written! (3) Barth is hard. You really have to want to understand him and even then it can be a tough go.

Like Calvin or Luther or Wesley or any of the truly great Christian minds of the past who have been found helpful by many believers across time and geography, those who pay the price to read and struggle to comprehend Barth will be rewarded.

Jimmy Carter says that Karl Barth is his favorite theologian.

Jimmy Carter says he is a born again Christian.

One of those statements is not true.

For the record you say: “Those who are forever explaining me to their loyal readership should know this: I rarely disagree with Barth, and whatever names you have for him probably apply to me without exception on my part.”

You do know Barth’s work is a big influence on Brian McLaren in particular and within the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church itself. Particularly Barth’s wrong view of Scripture upon youngbloods like Rob Bell.

And as far as the “heretic” label, I will remind you that I quote Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s, as well as Dr. Walter Martin’s, assessment of Barth’s heretical denial of verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture as opposed to Barth’s existential approach to the text of the Bible.

Just wanted to make sure your readers know the company that helped make sure the questions were all “answered” correctly.

As in, “Neo-orthodox?” i’ve read some Barth, and while I appreciate his calvinistic tendencies, his rejection of the infallibility of Scripture limits my intake.