Karl Barth on Capitalism

Finally, what are we to think of work which, while it is intrinsically neither useful nor harmful, presents so unworthy an aspect just because it is directed neither to good nor evil, nor indeed to man at all, but past him to a purely illusory yet dynamic and, in its conjunction of the two, almost unequivocally demonic process which consists in the amassing and multiplying of possessions expressed in financial calculations (or miscalculations), i.e., the "capital" which in the hands of the relatively few, who pull all the strings, may equally well, in a way wholly out with the control of the vast majority and therefore quite arbitrarily or accidentally, be a source of salvation or perdition for whole nations or generations. - Karl Barth Church Dogmatics Book 3 Volume 4 (T&T Clark, 1961),531-532.

Here Barth essentially calls the present system of capitalism, in which we currently live, a demonic power. He does not mean that free enterprise is evil, but that putting people to work, not to offer services, but to create money is evil. We've all seen the results of this process in Western Civilization today. When people exist for the sake of money, when money loses its value, the few with the resources can leave the many to perish. This is why investing in imaginary funds rather than the production of actual goods and services is a serious moral problem. This is why the Old Testament taught against interest, because it turns currency into a commodity rather than an implicit trade agreement.

Really?

 Jamin Hubner made this statement in his review of W.L. Craig's book the only wise God. 

As it has been pointed out endlessly by Calvinist apologists, human consciousness, the heart of man, is absolutely untouchable to God in Arminian and Molinist theology. God cannot and will not disturb the heart of any human being. He cannot disrupt their consciousness. - Jamin Hubner

I prefer to stay out of these discussions, but this statement simply appears not to be the case. I have not read Craig or Moreland's work on this particular subject, but I personally have not read any Arminian say that God is not allowed to effect human thoughts or the human will.

For instance, Arminius himself says this under the heading of Free Will in his complete works:

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace. 

 And he simply holds that thought in tension with this one, seen under Divine Grace in the same volume:

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace. From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free-will. For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, "is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?" That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace, (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did,) but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not. With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered.

 Now, I suppose one could make the inference that this ultimately entails the doctrine that God does not alter people's thoughts or will, but Arminius did not explicitly state this as an actual belief to which he ascribed. Which tells me that an Arminian theologian (Arminius) believed that God's grace does alter human thoughts, but that in a mysterious way, some people resist God's grace. Both of these are clear teachings in Scripture, but you can ask my friends I'm very Calvinistic.
I suppose puts me more on Carson's side in the debate. Relationally speaking, human beings can resist God's grace. But that in no way puts God out of ultimate control of the universe. I still want to define God's sovereignty in more historical rather than merely meticulous terms. God exercises his control in history as he binds the strong man and wrests his creation from the power of Satan, that is what we see in Revelation as well as the gospels. But this in no way detracts from God's ultimate control of the situation nor does it ultimately thwart or render moot his purposes.
Anyhow, Arminians do believe that God can alter thoughts. Calvinists do believe that humans make choices. I think everybody needs to strive to be as Biblical as possible here.

Jim is right, Christians can affirm this.

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; Creatorem coeli et terrae.
Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus (est) judicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam aeternam. Amen.