karl barth
- Thread starter bigheavyq
- Start date
- Status
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
That's weird. All the Van-Tillians I know (other than you, who are incidentally FV) love Barth..
polemic_turtle
Puritan Board Freshman
Neo-Orthodoxy - Audio - Dr. Curt Daniels
I thought that was a pretty good overview.
[Edited on 6-8-2006 by polemic_turtle]
I thought that was a pretty good overview.
[Edited on 6-8-2006 by polemic_turtle]
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
The interesting thing about Barth is that in many areas I found myself saying, "YES!" ... and then we get to other areas and I found myself saying, "NO!"
Here's a hint for when your professors are talking about Barth: don't be afraid to agree with Barth when he agrees with orthodoxy. I've found that this helps my credibility when I find something especially noxious.
Here's a hint for when your professors are talking about Barth: don't be afraid to agree with Barth when he agrees with orthodoxy. I've found that this helps my credibility when I find something especially noxious.
Not yet. But I've read Godon Clark's Three Types of Religious Philosophy, Religion, Reason, and Revelation and some of Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy and they are all very good.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Your induction is incorrect, good sir. I was criticizing, tongue-in-cheek, those who "claim" to be "Van-Tillians" who themselves are at enmity with a great deal of what Cornelius stood for and was most convicted about. I wasn't criticizing Van Til, Van Tillians, you, anyone you just listed, etc. And, just so you aren't led to induce any hostility or ill will towards you or any of your friends or respected colleagues, here's some e-hearts: <3 <3 <3
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Paul manata
ah! The ole tounge-in-cheek gets me again!
I'll do my best not to induce anything from that comment!
weinhold
Puritan Board Freshman
By its very title Van Til's book, Christianity and Barthianism, suggests that Barth's theology was somehow unChristian. Regardless of one's opinion on Barth, I find the following informative. When asked about Van Til's book, Barth himself said, "I do not see my face in his volume," essentially chiding Van Til for misinterpreting his work. When the two met in America years later, Van Til introduced himself to Barth, to which Barth responded, "Oh. I read what you wrote about me, and I forgive you."
Another thing that must be taken into consideration when talking about Barth is that he wrote an immense amount of material. His Church Dogmatics takes up a bookshelf, and he wrote many other articles and volumes. Any attempt to evaluate the whole of Barth's theology is thus extremely complex. One must take into account the development of Barth's thought over the course of his entire life, and thus evaluate his many nuances with care and charity. Unfortunately, this means that simplistic judgments about Barth will always be inadequate. In an effort to remedy this all too common symptom, I would recommend picking up T&T Clark's one volume abridged version of Church Dogmatics, as well as Dogmatics in Outline.
Another thing that must be taken into consideration when talking about Barth is that he wrote an immense amount of material. His Church Dogmatics takes up a bookshelf, and he wrote many other articles and volumes. Any attempt to evaluate the whole of Barth's theology is thus extremely complex. One must take into account the development of Barth's thought over the course of his entire life, and thus evaluate his many nuances with care and charity. Unfortunately, this means that simplistic judgments about Barth will always be inadequate. In an effort to remedy this all too common symptom, I would recommend picking up T&T Clark's one volume abridged version of Church Dogmatics, as well as Dogmatics in Outline.
So many books, so little time! What I'm going to do is read about Barth online, then later get Van Til's book and Gordon Clark's book and compare them. If they agree on Barth, I'm not going to bother reading much Barth.
If they disagree, I might read some of Barth. But to be honest, I have a lot of other books and subjects I want to read, and the fact the Barth has a whole shelf of books (his dogmatics I believe is longer than Calvin's Institutes and probably all of Luther combined), I doubt I'm ever going to read them through. Especially if Clark and Van Til come to many of the same conclusions about him. I'm really only interested in the bottom line. If it takes a whole shelf to figure out Barth from Barth - I'll read someone else about Barth and not waste my time with him.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Get the Van Til book...When I visited WTS PA a couple of months ago, I got to see Van Til's actual personal copies of Barth's Dogmatics. They were sooooo worn out. They were completely marked up and he was reading it in the original german!
I sat in a ThM course on Barth taught by Lane Tipton and Scott Oliphint. It was 2 hours of bliss watching them methodically critique him using the dogmatics as their source. No friends of Barth at WTS PA who are Van Tillian.
If anyone is interested in buying Barth's Dogmatics, I would suggest holding off and buying the digital edition from logos
http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/2607
His works would be much more useful if you could search by word or bible text, as well as copy paste.
I sat in a ThM course on Barth taught by Lane Tipton and Scott Oliphint. It was 2 hours of bliss watching them methodically critique him using the dogmatics as their source. No friends of Barth at WTS PA who are Van Tillian.
If anyone is interested in buying Barth's Dogmatics, I would suggest holding off and buying the digital edition from logos
http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/2607
His works would be much more useful if you could search by word or bible text, as well as copy paste.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Though I think CVT was fundamentally correct about Barth, his rhetoric (especially today when virtually any criticism is taken as an act of will to power) makes it difficult for fence-sitters and Barthians to listen. He never gives the reader an idea why Barth was attractive in the first place.
Bruce McCormack's volume on Barth is brilliant and, I think, fundamentally supports the Van Tillian critique, but it's an excellent gateway into Barth.
Yes. Barth wrote a huge amount of material. There is heated debate between Barth scholars whether or how his theology developed, whether there was an earlier and later Barth.
Gathering a few quotations won't be a good way to interact with a Barthian. Barth's dialectical (saying "yes and no" about the same things at the same time!) method makes it too easy to quote "orthodox" and "unorthodox" Barth at the same time.
Go very slowly with Barth. Read him against his German background. He's much more like Hermann than Calvin!
Richard Muller's essay from some years ago "What I Didn't Learn from Karl Barth" is a great intro as well (it was published in the Reformed Journal - now defunct).
rsc
Bruce McCormack's volume on Barth is brilliant and, I think, fundamentally supports the Van Tillian critique, but it's an excellent gateway into Barth.
Yes. Barth wrote a huge amount of material. There is heated debate between Barth scholars whether or how his theology developed, whether there was an earlier and later Barth.
Gathering a few quotations won't be a good way to interact with a Barthian. Barth's dialectical (saying "yes and no" about the same things at the same time!) method makes it too easy to quote "orthodox" and "unorthodox" Barth at the same time.
Go very slowly with Barth. Read him against his German background. He's much more like Hermann than Calvin!
Richard Muller's essay from some years ago "What I Didn't Learn from Karl Barth" is a great intro as well (it was published in the Reformed Journal - now defunct).
rsc
- Status
Similar threads
