# Barth online library?



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2008)

I can't justify paying 600 dollars for the Church Dogmatics, but I might need to use Barth for reference. Is his work available online?


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 23, 2008)

Andrew must be away from his computer, Jacob... Just sit tight, he'll get to you.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 23, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I can't justify paying 600 dollars for the Church Dogmatics, but I might need to use Barth for reference. Is his work available online?



I did some looking, Jacob. I couldn't find anything, but is this you?

Read "Church Dogmatics" (Karl Barth) in its entirety.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 23, 2008)

Why, Why, Why!! Why would anybody want to read Barth? Unless to debunk his junk.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 23, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Why, Why, Why!! Why would anybody want to read Barth? Unless to debunk his junk.



Ours is not to reason why.....

I believe Jacob needs it for scholarly reasons.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 23, 2008)

Yea, I had to wade through some of his stuff too! People in my church like him. So different that the good stuff. His work is devotional at best. When I would say he was bad, and explain what he said in my Sunday School class, I got blank stares. But when I quoted him, I got gasps and "That's not right". I totally fail to understand how he got as popular as he is.

Ivanhoe, I can totally understand why you don't want to pay for his stuff.


----------



## crhoades (Mar 23, 2008)

Logos Bible Software Blog: Barth's Church Dogmatics Coming Soon!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Why, Why, Why!! Why would anybody want to read Barth? Unless to debunk his junk.



Because I thought I might like it. I often read for aesthetic reasons. Anyway, to answer your question: the top theologians today are interacting with Barth (Milbank, O'Donovan, Leithart, Ralph Wood, Kevin Vanhoozer, etc,). I don't want to be left in the dark. 

Debunk his junk? Surely you overestimate my abilities! Far from it. I have an inkling that if I place take Barth out of his mid-20th century conversation and place him in a postmodern conversation, I can get interesting results. 

I have disagreements with Barth, but not the standard Reformed disagreements.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 23, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I have disagreements with Barth, but not the standard Reformed disagreements.



Why would you read someone with whom you disagree?


----------



## Grymir (Mar 23, 2008)

Hi Ivanhoe, I have all the standard Reformed disagreements. I would like to hear the other disagreements. One of my friends at church is totally liberal and into Barth big time. He used to be a pastor at a UCC church for a gazillion years, until he retired. He's probably about the only person in my church who is able to communicate with me on a theological level. Me and my friend have major doctoral differences, but we relate really well together. He also attends my class that I teach. That says alot to me. He's given me some Barth material to read. Most of it seems like devotional stuff, but his letters is insightful into the person he is. I've also read a short (2 or 3 page) statement that he wrote about doctrine that is totally different than most of his writings. I understand you when you are talking about interacting with the moderns. I had to wade through his stuff so I could relate. Secondary sources don't cut it in the theological world. When I read his writing on preaching and prayer, that was the piece that I read in class. It put him off my table, so to speak.

Alot of his stuff is available online. Far more than I can read in a lifetime. But I was theologically raised on the good teachers, Augustine, Luther, Many of the Puritans, I really like their hard hitting style. I guess that's why I come across too hard sometimes.

quote - "Debunk his junk? Surely you overestimate my abilities! Far from it. I have an inkling that if I place take Barth out of his mid-20th century conversation and place him in a postmodern conversation, I can get interesting results." This sounds interesting. I wonder how much of the foundation for this stuff Barth laid down. Keep us informed of your research. And no, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to debunk his junk (I think I've come up with a new phrase there)


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > I have disagreements with Barth, but not the standard Reformed disagreements.
> ...



To become sharper. And also when the subject is a man who is arguably (whether we like it or not) the most influential theologian of the last 100 years, whether I agree or not is irrelevant. 

At least for me, I do not become a better debater by talking with people who will already agree with me. 

Luther had to read Erasmus (or no Bondage of the Will)

Athanasius had to read his opponents (or no good Christology forthcoming)

Irenaeus had to read the Gnostics. 

And I don't disagree (or I am assuming I won't) with everything Barth says.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 24, 2008)

I have CD in hardback and will be passing them off to a friend when the Libronix version comes out in mid April. $300 for the computer version is about the best I have heard about so far. Somewhere I heard that major libraries (Princeton has the best Barth center) have a CD version of it.


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 24, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > Why, Why, Why!! Why would anybody want to read Barth? Unless to debunk his junk.
> ...




Most of the modern "top theologians" _are _Barthian; of course the interact with him! They're his spiritual children!

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 24, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



I'm sure this will mean nothing to you, but if you like Leithart, and you're going to read Barth, you're on your way to neo-orthodoxy.

Puritanically yours,

Adam


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 24, 2008)

Adam,

I have read Barth since 1972 and have suffered no observable tendencies toward neo-orthodoxy. Indeed, my theology has continued moving right since then. Inerrancy, six day creation, etc.

You are correct, however, that a steady dose of neo-orthodoxy is hazardous to the soul. My seminary pretty much cornered the market on neo-orthodox texts during my sojourn there. Maybe it was because several of the Fuller profs did at leeast some time studying under Barth at Basel.

Jacob strikes me as the kind of guy who could profit from Barth and handle it. Maybe it would give him and Tim Johnson something to talk about 

More seriously, at this stage of life, there is not enough time to read all of the Puritans. That means that it may be better for me to read the GREAT books rather than merely the trendy (or even important) ones.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Mar 24, 2008)

*Humm...junk, not hardly*



Grymir said:


> Why, Why, Why!! Why would anybody want to read Barth? Unless to debunk his junk.



Tim: I am convinced that anyone attempting to do theology (systematics or Biblical theology) today MUST read Barth...he is one of the most important theologians of our time. Junk, this is simply out of line. 

John

PS. Have you read all of the Dogmatics and his other materials?


----------



## Zadok (Mar 24, 2008)

Try the following link - has many of Barth's works as free downloadable digital works:

Internet Archive Search: creatorKarl Barth)

I am seeing a frown face for the above - Am I breaking some board etiquette?


----------



## Seb (Mar 24, 2008)

Zadok said:


> Try the following link - has many of Barth's works as free downloadable digital works:
> 
> Internet Archive Search: creatorKarl Barth)
> 
> I am seeing a frown face for the above - Am I breaking some board etiquette?



No. in the url you posted there are characters that the board software *interprets* as the frown smilie.

You have a ":" with a "(" next to it. That means frown smilie.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Grymir said:
> ...



Milbank disagrees with Barth.
Vanhoozer disagrees with Barth.
Leithart disagrees with Barth.
O'Donovan (for the most part) disagrees with Barth.

Rebellious children.

As for Leithart being Barthian, um...no. Leithart's work, _Priesthood of the Plebs_ is a savage critique of Barth's implicit Marcionism (the same critique, of course, is applied across the board to conservative Reformed as welll).


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 24, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



And yet, Against Christianity is a Barthian critique of Reformed theology, and the idea that God has revealed propositions that man may understand.

If he critiques Barth, it's a family dispute.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2008)

Leithart does not dispute the idea that God has revealed himself in propositions. He disputes the Foundationalist idea of propositionalism. Being sensitive to new areas of hermeneutics, and sensitive to much of the Enlightenment construction in secular and Christian (recent) hermeneutics, Leithart allows the concept of narrative to shape theology when called for. 

If being sensitive to narrative theology, narrative as a vehicle, is Barthian, then I am Barthian to the core!

If I may illustrate:

older generations (Carl Henry, etc) saw the narratives in the bible as useful in helping us form doctrines.

Drawing on premodern sources, Vanhoozer and Leithart would say that the doctrines in the Bible have a metanarrative as the goal.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 24, 2008)

Sydnorphyn said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > Why, Why, Why!! Why would anybody want to read Barth? Unless to debunk his junk.
> ...



I haven't read ALL of them, but I've read alot. More than enough to know what he's saying. I don't rely on secondary sources, and I don't say such things flippantly. His premises are seriously flawed. His view of the Bible for one. (I like to ask his followers this question - "If a Bible is laying in the middle of a forest, and there's no one around to read it, is it still the word of God?") Read Owen's The Death of Death, and then read Barth. There's a big difference between them.

He's popular, yes. But important?

A theologian is better off reading others. Besides, a real theologian will study the Bible, not rely on others. Because knowledge of God comes through studying the Bible (Something else Barth denies. He claims knowledge of God come through interacting with Him, not from a "scientific study of God as if he were in a test tube") The Bible is a set of propositions that God gives us about Himself in His Word. Barth denies that too, "knowledge comes from relationships".

Read Kant and Hume. That's were Barth draws alot of his premises from. 

Anyway, I have to get to work. Enjoy y'all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Read Owen's The Death of Death
> 
> Besides, a real theologian will study the Bible, not rely on others. Because knowledge of God comes through studying the Bible



So, do we read Owen or do we read the Bible? 

Anyway, a Barthian could heartily approve your statement. Does not knowledge of God come through natural revelation? _Nein_, or something like that.


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 24, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Leithart does not dispute the idea that God has revealed himself in propositions. He disputes the Foundationalist idea of propositionalism. Being sensitive to new areas of hermeneutics, and sensitive to much of the Enlightenment construction in secular and Christian (recent) hermeneutics, Leithart allows the concept of narrative to shape theology when called for.
> 
> If being sensitive to narrative theology, narrative as a vehicle, is Barthian, then I am Barthian to the core!
> 
> ...



Ivanhoe,

Let me find some quotations that we could discuss, and perhaps start a new thread. His stated enemy may be Henry and Clark, but I think it's a bit more complex than that.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Davidius (Mar 24, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



I was kidding.  I probably get too much pleasure out of reading Plato.



Grymir said:


> Read Owen's The Death of Death
> 
> Besides, a real theologian will study the Bible, not rely on others. Because knowledge of God comes through studying the Bible



According to the bible (Eph 4), we are to be equipped by God's teachers. Not that we don't glean knowledge from reading the bible ourselves, of course, but there's nothing impious about reading with a commentary or systematics on hand.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Leithart does not dispute the idea that God has revealed himself in propositions. He disputes the Foundationalist idea of propositionalism. Being sensitive to new areas of hermeneutics, and sensitive to much of the Enlightenment construction in secular and Christian (recent) hermeneutics, Leithart allows the concept of narrative to shape theology when called for.
> ...



Please find the quotations. I have read the book around 3 times. It is one of my favorites and a powerful weapon against secular moderntiy. It challenged me to acknowledge my Enlightenment presuppositions. 

Now you can provide the "Barthian" quotations and lo and behold, if I agree with it, then I guess I am a Barthian.


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 24, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Please find the quotations. I have read the book around 3 times. It is one of my favorites and a powerful weapon against secular moderntiy. It challenged me to acknowledge my Enlightenment presuppositions.
> 
> Now you can provide the "Barthian" quotations and lo and behold, if I agree with it, then I guess I am a Barthian.



Ivanhoe,

Perhaps, before we go on, you could tell me what you mean by the following terms:

Enlightenment
Secular Modernity

I'll search for quotations, if you will define these terms. Perhaps we can open up a new thread on the Enlightenment?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Please find the quotations. I have read the book around 3 times. It is one of my favorites and a powerful weapon against secular moderntiy. It challenged me to acknowledge my Enlightenment presuppositions.
> ...



Historians of philosophy, forgive me my broad brush.

Essentially I am labeling it the "modernity project." It is a cultural phenomenon in the West that aspires to reduce the complexities and evanescence of reality to stable order. It often seeks to map reality by theory.

In theology we see the temptation (and sometimes it is good to do so) to categorize and systematize everything--again, sometimes this is good but sometimes the Bible stubbornly resists it.

The danger is that we often miss poetic/poesis insights into God's word that defy neat categories. But categories are probably inevitable. But we often find ourselves asking the wrong questions, questions that are systems demand we ask. 

Or perhaps legitimate questions, but we often tell ourselves "well, that's all there is to say about this."


----------

