Barth on marriage

[Ploutos]

He is not a good writer. And while I am not a Van tillian, some of Van Til's lectures on Barth are hilarious.

Can you elaborate on these two statements?

Why would someone read him? I suppose if you are wanting an overcorrection to the social Trinitarian craze, Barth could be interesting.

How so?

 

[RamistThomist]

Can you elaborate on these two statements?

I don't know what else to say. He writes in tortuous prose. And Van Til has some good lectures on him.

How so?

Barth was accused of being a modalist. Be that as it may, he focused on the persons as tropos huparxeos, modes of being (which language was taken from St Basil). That cuts off social Trinitarianism at the pass.

 

[Ploutos]

I don't know what else to say. He writes in tortuous prose. And Van Til has some good lectures on him.


Barth was accused of being a modalist. Be that as it may, he focused on the persons as tropos huparxeos, modes of being (which language was taken from St Basil). That cuts off social Trinitarianism at the pass.

Ok thanks. I didn't quite grok whether the "hilarious" was aimed at CVT or KB.

 

[Pictet]

I don't think that this is necessarily the most important threat of Barthian theology. But since I'm reading a book about marriage, that's the part of his theology that came up.

It may not be the most important threat, but in a helpful way it's the clearest. People who are excited by some of his theology and don't see its problems can often be awoken to them somewhat faster by letting them know about his personal life and how he justified it.

I think many see him as a hero for either rejecting liberal theology or rejecting Hitler/nazism (or both). He challenged both sides of theology (liberal and confessional) so he got double the attention. He had a lot of flash and thus a lot of followers - from the Pope to Time magazine. He made people think after the failure of liberalism (WWI) and the sell-out of many in confessing churches (WWII). Some of his writing is very good (I remember liking a lot of what he wrote about ethics) but a lot is problematic (his Christology and view of God's sovereignty, for example). Plus he's Swiss - they're always cool.

He's got academic cachet, interacting plausibly with serious academic philosophers as well as liberal theologians. If you are in the world of secular theological education, he gives you the resources to stay closer to an Evangelical position while still being able to stay plausibly academic.

That's a dangerous attraction, and why those who have studied academic theology often need e.g. John Webster to decontaminate them from Barthian thinking before they get to older more reliable theologians.

 

[No Other Name]

grok

Just when you think you have seen it all on PB .... hahahahaha

 

[Ploutos]

Just when you think you have seen it all on PB .... hahahahaha

Is there meaning to that word of which I'm unaware? I've used it for years... Maybe even decades at this point.

 

[No Other Name]

Is there meaning to that word of which I'm unaware? I've used it for years... Maybe even decades at this point.

It's from a hippie SF novel by Robert A Heinlein called "Stranger in a Strange Land".

It means a deep empathy to the point of a spooky "woo" level more so than mere understanding.

 

[Ploutos]

That would make sense, since the crowd I learned that word from as a child was heavily into SF/alt-history/tabletop gaming.

I always thought it to have a semantic range similar to "grasp" or "comprehend" or "getting it".

 

[No Other Name]

That would make sense, since the crowd I learned that word from as a child was heavily into SF/alt-history/tabletop gaming.

I always thought it to have a semantic range similar to "grasp" or "comprehend" or "getting it".

You didn't grok the word "grok".

hahahahaha

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

That would make sense, since the crowd I learned that word from as a child was heavily into SF/alt-history/tabletop gaming.

I always thought it to have a semantic range similar to "grasp" or "comprehend" or "getting it".

Yes, it does mean those things when Sci-Fi geeks use it.

But "in context" to the story it came from, it means to so fully understand, comprehend, and empathize with something that the distinction between yourself and the thing you "grok" is virtually gone.

It's very hippie, new-agey philosophy sort of stuff.

This Wikipedia article explains it well enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

By the way, I use the word "grok" too, to mean "understand fully". I am also a Sci-Fi geek.

 

[RamistThomist]

Can you elaborate on these two statements?

How so?

I'll take a guess on why some might consider Barth worth reading Barth asked what theology would look like if we began with the self-revelation of Jesus Christ. And what election would look like if we started with Christ as the Elected One. It sounds interesting and you can find some faint patristic echoes for some parts. But what Barth meant by it is anybody's guess.

 

[Deleted member 12431]

Also, just a question, why is it that I run across some otherwise orthodox (evangelicals and not Barthians or neo-Orthodox) people who are enamored with Barth?

Barth is a rather creative thinker who brings you into conversations you would never be in if you stuck to engaging with those who are theologically familiar to you. In that way, he makes you consider and reckon with issues through angles that you would not have otherwise, which grows you as a thinker. I think there can be a healthy, critical appreciation for his contribution to the theological enterprise, but the extent to which some are "enamored" by him is too far in my estimation. Relating this to the OP, it seems strange to call one a "great" or "favorite theologian" who was so habitually unfaithful to his wife.

 

[Ploutos]

I'll take a guess on why some might consider Barth worth reading Barth asked what theology would look like if we began with the self-revelation of Jesus Christ. And what election would look like if we started with Christ as the Elected One. It sounds interesting and you can find some faint patristic echoes for some parts. But what Barth meant by it is anybody's guess.

Thank you - that makes a lot of sense.

Barth is a rather creative thinker who brings you into conversations you would never be in if you stuck to engaging with those who are theologically familiar to you. In that way, he makes you consider and reckon with issues through angles that you would not have otherwise, which grows you as a thinker. I think there can be a healthy, critical appreciation for his contribution to the theological enterprise, but the extent to which some are "enamored" by him is too far in my estimation. Relating this to the OP, it seems strange to call one a "great" or "favorite theologian" who was so habitually unfaithful to his wife.

Very helpful perspective!

 

[RamistThomist]

Thank you - that makes a lot of sense.

Very helpful perspective!

These are from my notes on CD II/2. I was trying to flesh out Barth's claim that Christ was the subject of election. I noticed an Athanasian parallel, but Barth didn't develop it.

1. Athanasius said Jesus was the Subject of Election (Contra Arianos II. 75-77).
   1. God doesn’t literally take counsel with himself.
   2. A kingdom cannot have been prepared for us before the ages unless there were a Lord there to prepare it (Barth 109).
   3. The election of the man Jesus and our election in the Eternity of the Word.
   4. For Athanasius predestination is the decision at the beginning of all things

 

[ZackF]

I don't know what else to say. He writes in tortuous prose. And Van Til has some good lectures on him.


Barth was accused of being a modalist. Be that as it may, he focused on the persons as tropos huparxeos, modes of being (which language was taken from St Basil). That cuts off social Trinitarianism at the pass.

It’s interesting you mention this. I have read Von Balthasar tried to defend Barth against Van Til. Shaeffer tried to engage him in person and Barth was pretty defensive. Of course Shaeffer didn't speak German and Barth’s English was not very good.