Introducing and Interpreting Karl Barth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- Jim Cassidy and Camden Bucey bring in the New Year with a discussion of bible reading plans, tools, and strategies. They preview several of the projects that lay ahead at Reformed Forum, including a new course on the theology of Karl Barth. Dr. Cassidy introduces a list of recommended reading on Karl Barth and different interpretations of the theologian's theology before speaking about Barth’s unique Christology.
00:07 Introduction
03:34 Giving Update
08:46 Reading Plans for the New Year
21:44 Introducing Karl Barth
26:06 Recommended Reading on Barth
35:04 Interpretations of Barth
46:51 Barth's Christology
58:35 Conclusion
This is Christ the Center episode 784 (www.reformedforum.org/ctc784)
Thank You for the content, very informative.
Very useful! Thanks!
Thanks for the wealth of sources sited on today’s video. I’m currently reading “Church Dogmatics: A Selection with Introduction” by Helmut Gollwitzer. I’m only a third of the way through the book, but so far he paints Barth’s theology as Orthodox. Haven’t read Barth before, so his language could be nuanced and misleading. Hope to grab some of the suggested reading to work through.
Been reading the critique of Barth in the Great Thinkers series, and just wanted to let you know the author disagrees that Christianity and Barthianisn, and Van Til specifically, represent Barth accurately. I’m sure y’all know more about the nuances on that debate more than me, but it felt like a piece of contemporary scholarship worth including! Lot of solid names, and solid interaction with primary resources.
Thanks for the comment, George. You may be interested Dr. Cassidy's newly-published, lengthy review of Dr. Tseng's contribution on Barth to the Great Thinkers. He interacts with the author on your precise point. The review is available on Reformation21.
@@rynounworthysaint very helpful, thanks!
@@rynounworthysaint thanks again! I skimmed through, and thankful. I suppose the only way to evaluate given these different schools is read Barth, and CVT on Barthianism, and think through some of the best of the secondary literature and classes like the one in the OP.
Thank you again for directing me!
Somebody that argues like an eel isn't easy to 'represent accurately'. John and Jesus did however hit the nail, when he called them 'brood of vipers'.
Great stuff! Unrelated but you may be interested in the Feb 2023 Tabletalk from Ligonier on Machen
Starts at 21:44 in, we’ll… add a couple of minutes.. no no… make that 27:40 ! Hmmm …
It may be just too simplistic to say, but given all the, what appear to me, clearly unorthodox and sub-Biblical teachings of Barth, why he was never called out as at least a false teacher? Maybe in another episode you delve into that. God's blessings, gentlemen.
Because he's actually pretty conservative compared to what else was going on in European Protestantism after WW2. Barth might even be to the theological right of Thielicke, since Barth could at least affirm some sort of inerrancy. I'd call Barth Heterodox since there is no specific heresy he has that puts him outside of the Faith and hopelessly without Christ.
He received a few angry sounding letters from Francis Schaeffer I think and Van Til was very concerned about him, my personal take is that Barth is at the least an improvement over Arminius even if it's an improvement bent out of shape by Kant.