RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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?
Barth online library?
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
Ivan
Pastor
I did some looking, Jacob. I couldn't find anything, but is this you?
Read "Church Dogmatics" (Karl Barth) in its entirety.
Ivan
Pastor
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Ivanhoe, I can totally understand why you don't want to pay for his stuff.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Inactive User
Why would you read someone with whom you disagree?
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
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)
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Professor
Most of the modern "top theologians" are Barthian; of course the interact with him! They're his spiritual children!
Adam
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
Humm...junk, not hardly
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?
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?
Last edited:
Zadok
Puritan Board Freshman
Try the following link - has many of Barth's works as free downloadable digital works:
Internet Archive Search: creator
Karl Barth)
I am seeing a frown face for the above - Am I breaking some board etiquette?
Internet Archive Search: creator
Karl Barth)I am seeing a frown face for the above - Am I breaking some board etiquette?
Seb
Puritan Board Junior
Try the following link - has many of Barth's works as free downloadable digital works:
Internet Archive Search: creator
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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.
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritan Board Professor
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
Inactive User
I was kidding.
I probably get too much pleasure out of reading Plato.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
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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."
- Status
