Karl Barth in 5 Minutes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 мар 2021
- No one can learn Karl Barth in five minutes, of course. But here I aim to introduce you to what I think are a few of the central ideas in his theology.
Enjoy my work? Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/MorrisonSDM
My website: www.sdmorrison.org
My book on Barth: amzn.to/3kRQDlc
I am definitely excited to read Barth because of this video! Very cool.
Thank you very much sir, for your precise presentation. It really polised my ideas and understanding of Barth.
This was really good. It gave me a much deeper understanding of what is meant by the term 'the Good News'. Thanks.
Superb, thanks very much for this, it is very tight and defined.
Thank you very much. I had just recently become tangentially familiar with Barth's theology in a paper I read on Jakob Bohme (believe it or not), and this convinced me that I need to know Barth's work better as my original impression was far off the mark. Good job.
Thanks for watching!
I really appreciate your videos! Great work 👍
Thanks for watching!
I really appreciate what you do. Thank you for your clear presentations!
Thanks for watching, Daniel! Glad you’ve benefited from it.
@@StephenDMorrison Today I am Reading Katherine Sonderegger's book on the Trinity for a class. My brain is melting! If you ever have time to check it out it would be interesting to hear your perspective on it. She really goes against Moltmann and Barth in some instances. Thanks again!
@@danielm.3103 I haven’t read it but I’ve been meaning to for a while now! Seems interesting.
So clear! Love your insights! I will definitely check out your book!
Thanks, Brian!
@@StephenDMorrison Purchased the ebook. Barth and Thanksgiving. Works for me with a side of football. Happy Thanksgiving!
@@brianwooters6978 happy thanksgiving! :)
thank you this will help me with the paper I am currently writing on Karl Barth
Glad to help! Blessings
Great summary! Thanks
Thanks for watching, Glen!
Thank you Stephen
Nice. Hi from Orthodox Church. Keep up.
I appreciate your careful survey.
Thanks for watching, Alexander!
Hey man, thx a lot for those short Theologian studies. It helps me prepare for exams on theology. If at any point in your life you could also do Brunner, Tillich, Pannenberger, Bultmann and Bonheffer, the students of our seminary would definitely be glad :D
Glad to hear these were helpful! I’ll be writing on Tillich and Bonhoeffer next for the book series. I’ll try to do videos after I’ve done enough research :)
@@StephenDMorrison waw, thx man, it is really helpful, hope I can know them as good as you do once :D God bless your work.
Central points well explained. This will spark interest in anyone listening.
Thank you
Thank you for this! It's difficult for beginners to read theology if we haven't been given some idea of where the text is heading.
Thanks for watching, Meg! Glad to hear you found it helpful.
Helpful! Seems like all my fav NT scholars LOVE Barth. Has sparked my own interest. Thank you!
Thanks for watching, Josh!
The notion of the only revelation of God being in Christ presents a problem for Paul’s reasoning in Romans chapter 1. Paul, seemingly in an effort to answer the question “what about those who have never heard of Jesus“, stated that men are without excuse because God’s invisible qualities can be clearly seen through the things that are made. I for one have always found Paul’s reasoning there a bit problematic. Does Barth address this?
Hi Mark, thanks for the question! It is an important one.
Barth does address this in a few places. First, in the Romans commentary, he touches on this some. But more importantly, he also deals with this directly in a few important sections of Church Dogmatics. Firstly, volume II/1, where he concludes, after some exegesis of the text:
"It is impossible to draw from the text a statement (which can then be advanced as timeless, general and abstract truth) concerning a natural union with God or knowledge of God on the part of man in himself and as such" (p. 120).
Now he also addresses it some in volume IV/3, in the section on "secular parables of the Kingdom." I should note that there is some debate in Barthian scholarship about how to reconcile Barth's rejection of natural theology and the concept of a secular parable. This is a good intro to the issue: postbarthian.com/2016/07/22/karl-barths-no-natural-theology-secular-parables-kingdom/.
T. F. Torrance argued for a "reformulated" natural theology, and I discuss some of that and its relation to Barth in my book, "T. F. Torrance in Plain English." So I think there is a place still for natural theology in Barth's thought, but in this video, I wanted to stress more the reason for his rejection of a kind of natural theology, as it is a helpful intro to Barth as a whole.
But as a whole, I agree with you and also find Romans 1 problematic. So I do not think it is enough to establish a basis for natural knowledge of God apart from Christ, especially in Barth's sense of the term, as a union with God and human intellect apart from Jesus.
Thanks for watching and God bless!
Stephen
This is the first of your videos I have watched. I read Barth's commentary on Romans years ago ... and was simultaneously moved and indicted ... it was one of those 'you must change your life' events ... but how? How can I live up to the truth Barth lays bare? But if there is no "God behind the back of Jesus' then maybe there is hope that I can be truly human in the eyes of God.
Great video, I am reading through his Epistle to the Romans right now. It is Very dense but I'm starting to like it. Also, is it pronounced Bar-TH(emphasis on the -TH?) or Barth (pronounced like Bart Simpson)?
Thanks! His Roman commentary is dense and difficult, but good. I’d recommend dogmatics in outline or evangelical theology for something a bit easier. It is pronounced Bart, like Simpson.
@@StephenDMorrison Thanks! I’ll have to get those when I get the chance.
It is also taught from some pulpits that when Jesus returns/judges that Jesus has seemingly become a vengeful, harsh, severe punisher of vast numbers of individuals who have not turned to him as saviour before they died.
Curious if you saw the RUclips debate between Trent Horn and Jay Dyer? Shades of the Karl Barth vs Erich Przywara debates.
I haven't, no. Worth watching?
Where would you recommend I start with Barth?
'Evangelical Theology,' 'Dogmatics in Outline,' or 'Faith of the Church' are good volumes to start with. I also do a video on the books by and on Barth that I recommend for more: ruclips.net/video/1fwKJ0rigEQ/видео.html.
@@StephenDMorrison I watched that right after I commented haha. Reading John Crowder has given me a desire to check out Barth & Torrance! Love your channel.
@@jesusbliss Thanks for watching! Crowder's work introduced me to Torrance via C. Baxter Kruger about ten years ago. It's been quite the journey since, blessing!
Could someone please explain what is meant at 3:50 "God said no to Christ in order to say yes to all people"
This is in reference to Barth’s doctrine of election from CD II/2, wherein Christ is both elect and reprobate for our sake.
Christ centered.... I like that....
so...he was a reformed theologian who rejected reformed theology, interesting :)
He was a liberal theologian that became neo-orthodox.
Frankly all of the Reformers were Christ entered. And I see little difference between Barth”s “God for us”, and Calvin’s definition of faith in the Institutes as “a steady and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us”, as a matter of fact Calvin and Barth are identical when it comes to their perception of God as being good to them and being for them.
They certainly are different. Have you actually read Barth?
0:38 There is no God behind the back of Jesus Christ
1:05 Three sub-points
1. No to natural theology ( 1:16)
Knowing God apart from Jesus is futile(1:55)
2. The doctrine of election (2:31)
Reformed theologian but rejected Calvin's interpretation of double predestination ( 2:45)
a) God might arbitrary elect some individuals and other individuals is too speculative and abstract (2:50) and ultimately found no basis in the person of Jesus
(3:22) Election centred on Christ. God election of God-self (3:31) ; the Elect(Jesus 3:39 4:13) 3:58 Doctrine of election ( Barth) God says yes to the human race(4:30 )
3. Last point (4:34) Between the person of Jesus Christ and God the Father(4:42)
and conclusion (5:20) Gospel as good news for human race all(5:37)
Thus three points:(5:53) that's christ-centric theology
Don’t be afraid to call HIM a HE, as HE revealed in Jesus Christ, HIS SON.
The Western Churches concept that the 'goodnews of the gospel' is we invite Jesus into our life isn't biblical. The patristic early fathers of the faith made it clear that its wholly Jesus inviting us into His life.
God Himself
Around 1:58. "Any attempt to know God apart from Jesus is futile." What about the Jews? Do the Jews not know God, who was the God of Jesus? Whatever happened to "Salvation is of the Jews"? Before the nativity, how did anyone know God?
Hi Nadav, thanks for the comment. This phrase is meant in the sense of positive theological content. God's existence might be known through other means, and indeed, Barth later seemed to accept the possibility that other truths can be found outside the Christian faith. But as far as Christian theology is concerned, God's *nature* is known in and through Jesus Christ. Who God is and what it is to be God is defined by the self-revelation of God in Christ. That God exists is a different point than God's nature. And Barth recognizes that Jesus as a Jew includes the Jewish faith, so it is not an exclusion of the Hebrew concept of God but inclusive. He contributed a lot to the Jewish-Christian dialogue and considered the Jewish faith a part of the church.
@@StephenDMorrison wait, “Jewish faith part of the church”?! This seems contradictory for both the Jewish faith and Christian church. How does Barth consider Jewish faith part of the church?
@@ianmoore9154 I mean in the sense that there is no Christian church without the Jewish faith, not that the Jewish faith is collapsed into the church.
Does Barth even believe in the trinity? This “radical christocentricity” and omission of the Father sounds like Jesitism.
Yes, he certainly does. Remember, this is just a short summary of what makes him unique as a theologian. Christocentricity does not mean he has no concept of the Father. It is the opposite case, actually. Barth revitalized the Trinity in modern theology by beginning his dogmatics with the Trinity. He was thoroughly trinitarian.