tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4832064753055336724..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Hard to Believe: “Barth on History”Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86537263558230182542013-07-02T11:16:05.721-04:002013-07-02T11:16:05.721-04:00I'm not in a position to say. Certainly those ...I'm not in a position to say. Certainly those kinds of things are not helpful, and even can lead people astray. That is one reason why teachers are held to greater accountability. <br /><br />But I still think it's important to oppose and work to correct their positions (as Steve especially does here). John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74720011598221773512013-07-02T11:13:31.277-04:002013-07-02T11:13:31.277-04:00john can one deny plenary inerrancy and still have...john can one deny plenary inerrancy and still have a credible profession of faith like barth or guys like randall rauser, what about those who denied the historicity of adam like peter ennsLonelyBoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02296231795980808737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36772266111880049662013-07-01T11:36:40.587-04:002013-07-01T11:36:40.587-04:00The Time Magazine cover, by the way, was from 1962...The Time Magazine cover, by the way, was from 1962. In the RTS seminar, Dr. Charles MacKenzie noted that Time put Barth on the cover because "Barth had done for theology what Einstein did for physics". Dr. MacKenzie knew Barth personally (the recording is probably from the 1980's), and while he strenuously disagrees with Barth's view of the Scriptures (and with those students who look for ways to rationalize Barth's views of the Scriptures), he doesn't hesitate to give credit where credit is due as well. John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.com