# Barth's 14 Vol. for $99.99



## moral necessity (Jul 12, 2010)

Letting you know of a super deal if you're working on your library.

Church Dogmatics, 14 Volumes: Karl Barth: 9781598564426: Christianbook.com

Blessings!


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 12, 2010)

If you are in need of kindling, it's not a bad deal...


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 12, 2010)

Or, if you roll your own you would have a lifetime supply. The paper would be less poisonous as rolling paper than reading paper.


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 12, 2010)

I'ld buy it, if I had the money. I can think of some non-burning and historical research uses for the collection.


----------



## torstar (Jul 12, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Letting you know of a super deal if you're working on your library.
> 
> Church Dogmatics, 14 Volumes: Karl Barth: 9781598564426: Christianbook.com
> 
> Blessings!


 

I'd take the original version for my bookshelf just so I could say it's my "white elephant" when people asked about it.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 12, 2010)

I for one would love it. But I don't have any money to spend on books right now so I can just dream of all the books I would buy if...


----------



## baron (Jul 12, 2010)

Seeing the majority of post seems not to like Barth is he that bad? I have no idea what he taught. Is there nothing he taught on that could be profitable to a Christian?

I also was thinking of purchasing the set.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 12, 2010)

> Seeing the majority of post seems not to like Barth is he that bad? I have no idea what he taught. Is there nothing he taught on that could be profitable to a Christian?



Barth had some value in that he saw the bankruptcy of liberalism, but when he tried to define a new "orthodoxy" he reapplied meanings to terms so that he could sound OK in the reformed camp, but did not truly affirm historical Christianity. For example, Barth affirmed that Christ is _in_ the word of God but not that the word itself was inerrant. Two people might discuss a point of theology, but not realize that the other person is defining the terms in an entirely different manner.


----------



## torstar (Jul 12, 2010)

Joshua said:


> baron said:
> 
> 
> > Is there nothing he taught on that could be profitable to a Christian?
> ...


 

How does one have confidence they have a clue what he was talking about?


----------



## reformed trucker (Jul 12, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Letting you know of a super deal if you're working on your library.
> 
> Church Dogmatics, 14 Volumes: Karl Barth: 9781598564426: Christianbook.com
> 
> Blessings!




Run, before Grymir hears of this!


----------



## Grymir (Jul 13, 2010)

To Late, I need some levelers/anti-vibration pads for my washing machine and I'm thinking of ordering.

Quote - "How does one have confidence they have a clue what he was talking about?" Barth knew what he was talking about. Too bad he didn't know the Bible as well. He didn't like the way liberal Christianity was going, took a stand against it, then agreed with all of the liberal views of the Bible.

One of my favorite questions to ask Barthians is "If the Bible is laying in the middle of the woods and there's no one around to read it, is it still the Word of God?"

This is your brain. This is your brain on Barth. (Imagine a frying pan with the PCUSA frying in it)


----------



## torstar (Jul 13, 2010)

Grymir said:


> To Late, I need some levelers/anti-vibration pads for my washing machine and I'm thinking of ordering.
> 
> Quote - "How does one have confidence they have a clue what he was talking about?" Barth knew what he was talking about. Too bad he didn't know the Bible as well. He didn't like the way liberal Christianity was going, took a stand against it, then agreed with all of the liberal views of the Bible.
> 
> ...


 


Sorry, sorry, sorry, I believe Barth knew what he was talking about. I meant how does any other mortal have confidence they have a clue what he meant? 

My dilettantish efforts to read Barth (in the vulgar language) left me in a muddle.

Francis Schaeffer helped with his comments on "connotation words", helped in packing it in. Life is too short and those I admire pan Barth.

Kung seemed to try to imitate this writing style but had 50% of the juice.

More "with-it" characters using up oxygen as they emerge are trying to imitate it with 00-10% of Barth's mental horsepower.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 13, 2010)

Karl Rahner mentions a conversation he had with Barth, where he asked him about asking someone to pray for you. Barth, knowing where he was going, replied that Protestants would say, "Let us pray for one another". Rahner could live with that since it still included a request for prayer, and therefore we should all say, "Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death." 

Barth failed pretty signally there, by omitting to distinguish between requests for prayer, directed to living people, and prayer itself, directed to the dead. While papists might not think much of that reply, Isaiah would have approved (Isaiah 8:19). It's a relatively small point, but if that's the best he can do, it doesn't suggest a very firm grasp on Biblical teaching.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 20, 2010)

I got into to studying Barth years ago, too many years ago to remember, when I read very conflicting criticisms of his thinking like somepeople say he denied the innerency of scripture others said he didn't. Or that he affirmed universalism and the majority of sympathetic critics said he toyed with the idea only. So who was right? I decided to read him for myself and find out. I think he raised excellant questions but the traditional Reformed Faith provided much more Biblical answers than he did. So I guess in the end I reserve cautious judgment about him, my jury is still out. But I would never encourage Reformed Christians to study him either.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 27, 2010)

I think it's interesting that T&T Clark (Barth's publisher for many years) was willing to let go of the rights to that huge work. I wonder how much Hendrickson had to pay to get the North American hardback reprint rights. I assume the set (or individual volumes therefrom) was a big money-maker for T&T for years.

I know Barth was pretty hinky on things like the doctrine of Scripture, but I've "heard" that Volume 2, Part 1 and Volume 2, Part 2 (his explication of the doctrine of God) is actually pretty good. Haven't read it myself, so don't know...

As for the price, $99 for the set is a good price. Too bad it's...you know...Karl Barth!


----------



## Parker234 (Jul 27, 2010)

I already have the complete works on John Wesley as my white elephant books. But this would make me look way open minded if I put if on my shelf between Calvin and Bavinck...


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 28, 2010)

Parker234 said:


> I already have the complete works on John Wesley as my white elephant books. But this would make me look way open minded if I put if on my shelf between Calvin and Bavinck...


 
I disagree, I think it would make you look like a well arounded historical theologian scholar. If you want to give away such as a white elephant gift to me, I will not complain.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 28, 2010)

At one time, I had the CD set and about 3' of Barth and secondary sources on him. My main theologians in college and seminary were devoted Barthians (a PhD under Torrance for one and another who co-translated CD!).

Barth is difficult to ignore for no other reason than David's point about being well "rounded." However, as one of the old guys here (turning 57 next week), I would strongly caution you from investing too much time in Barth. He thought Calvin was OK, but hated his view of election (Barth bordered on Christomonism in addition to his flirtation with universalism). Barth could really dump on the Westminster Divines for screwing up Reformed theology (along with most of the post-Reformation scholastics). Due to his relentless dialectic, you will find that anything Barth gives you with one hand he will take away with the other.

It is interesting that now that the academy has found him passé, and after his ideas have helped screw up several major denominations (cf. Grymir if you need first hand anecdotal evidence), the evangelical community has re-discovered him.

My beef with Barth is several fold. Sorry if this is not intellectual enough for some of you.

1. The fruit of his teaching is largely poison to churches. Show me a Barthian that either grows a church, feeds the flock faithfully, or leaves a legacy worth having.

2. Any Christian scholar who brings his mistress (I know there are still some who think that the relationship was merely intellectual) into his home, subjects his wife and children to her for decades, and takes summer long vacations with her to the mountains to "write" just weirds me out. Even his nearly sycophantically adoring biographer, who tiptoes with the great delicacy over the Lollo issue, admits that it subjected his wife and children to "great" pain and discomfort. Although, I'm told that Marcus grew up thinking that he had two mommies (doesn't everyone?), that is just wrong!

3. There are simply TOO many GREAT books to read that are fully orthodox to invest the huge amount of time necessary to master the 9,000 pages of CD.

If none of that convinces you, read IV/1 on the doctrine of reconciliation. It is the heart of this theology and the most inspirational read. It also reflects the thinking of the "mature" Barth (which means that Lollo's ideas are probably in every paragraph).

Barth's logic led him to reject out of hand many of the orthodox verities that those of us on PB take for granted. His willingness to follow his own relentless dialectic, regardless of what the Bible said, makes him less than an ideal guide in my opinion. Making Christ out to be the Prodigal Son who goes whoring in the far country, shying away from hell, etc. just got to be too much baggage to unlearn. If you are into reading things that make your brain hurt, stick with Owen.

I gave away my set and use it in digital form in Libronix for research purposes.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 28, 2010)

I will say that Barth is valuable to read mostly for his historical theology. His historical theological project was to read the most important theological book of every single decade of church history, and to read it in the original language. Of course, he is totally wrong on the Reformed scholastics, as are many modern-day theologians. And Dennis's cautions are salutary. Nonetheless, he is important to try to grasp, if only because of the renaissance he's experiencing over here in the states.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 28, 2010)

I have a hard time believing that any renaissance of Barth will be long-lived. He is the death-knell of Protestant liberalism, which is already passe even in many non-conservative circles. Hans Urs von Balthasar, on the other hand, what will become of him?


----------



## Staphlobob (Jul 29, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Letting you know of a super deal if you're working on your library.
> 
> Church Dogmatics, 14 Volumes: Karl Barth: 9781598564426: Christianbook.com
> 
> Blessings!


 
Thanks, but I'm not in need of any doorstops at the moment.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 29, 2010)

I've always wanted to study his Dogmatics to do an in-depth study of where he and the reformation parted ways. I believe that there are fundemental differences between the two at the most basic level and then they sort off in different directions. He felt that he was withen the fold, I don't think he was, so why did he feel that way? That is one area of interest for me. As far as Hans Urs von Balthasar, CharlieJ, I don't know. My grandmother, who is catholic, is getting me a book of essays on him, along with a book on Henri De Lubac. I'll let you know what I think after I read, my humble unscholarly opinion isn't worth much though.


----------

