Tag: Barth

Karl Barth, on his development of a human sexuality, rails against the malady and disobedience represented by any expression of a homosexuality; or any other deviances further downstream, as those also develop therefrom. The 21st century Barth world, ironically, is dominated by progressives and sociological liberals. Such postBarthians, in order to keep their status, mostly in the halls of the academy, must attempt to marginalize or altogether avoid Barth’s thinking on a human sexuality; particularly as he develops that in Church Dogmatics III/4 §54. In order, to provide a register of this Barthian development, since I have never seen anyone…

There is an irony with Karl Barth, many, but one of them is that he is highly traditional in regard to human sexuality. This is ironic because the places, in the 21st century, that serve as harbingers and promoters of his theology, both Princeton Theological Seminary (and its Center for Barth Studies) and all of those with similar sensibilities, must distance themselves from Barth on these matters; that is, in order to stay politically and socially correct. But it is better to be biblically and christologically correct for my money. Here is a short snippet from Barth on this, with…

Barth attempts to offer a Biblical Angelology. In the process he surveys some of the most primary developments on an angelology, in the history, as those were offered by Dionysius and Thomas Aquinas. Just on that level his treatment is interesting and rewarding. But in the midst of that, since he is slavishly beholden to the Protestant ‘Scripture Principle,’ he also identifies what I also take to be primary to a truly Christian presentation on the angels. As is typical, especially with reference to my own interests, Barth rightly recognizes the role that a prolegomena/hermeneutic will end up having on…

I wrote these for other social media outlets of mine. I thought I’d share them here as miscellanies.  People reject Barth out of hand simply because they’ve been told that Barth is ultimately a liberal (still). But these same people have never actually read Barth enough to know whether that be true or not. Coming from someone, an evangelical conservative Christian (me), who has both read Barth and Barth literature extensively, and published on Barth, these people are simply living in a willful land of ignorance. Granted, Barth’s 𝑜𝑒𝑢𝑣𝑟𝑒 is extensive. But there are ways into Barth that can introduce you…

… This means that in spite of all his undeniable efforts to move away from Pietism, Barth was clearly too closely attached to it to be able to attack the innermost bastion of Pietism held by his reviewers. In the following section we will elaborate on the decisive point where he was still closely attached to Pietism in spite of everything.” -Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth & the Pietists, trans. by Daniel W. Bloesch (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2004), 65. This is probably another reason I have so resonated with Barth over the years. My background, of course!, as an…

The relationship between philosophy and theology remains a varied thing, at least for me. In the Barth[ian] tradition there are a variety of takes on this relationship just the same. Barth himself sees a relative value to having an understanding of the various philosophies blowing about, whither and thither. But in the main, for Barth et al., an untoward appropriation and deployment of any philosophy vis-à-vis a Christian theology, ends up presenting a highly delipidated theology that bears no resemblance to the genuine article as Self-revealed in the prosopon (face) of Jesus Christ. Of note, as Barth is engaging with…

Barth and TF Torrance are the only modern theologians I have come across who if you don’t start with radically construed Chalcedonian premises, you won’t get. Their dialect is strictly christologically conditioned all the way down. This is one reason I think so many evangelical and conservative theologians of today write them off as incoherent. For example, theologians who harvest purely from the Post Reformed orthodox (pro), and some of the mediaeval theologians, will attempt to read Barth and TFT through the speculative, decretal categories they have imbibed vis-à-vis their recovery of said pro and med. theologians. And yet, this…

I’m starting to believe as I continue my trek through the 6M words of Barth’s CD that many young (and some old) so-called Barth scholars have never read through Barth’s CD. There are things in there about history, the resurrection, so on and so forth that completely emaciate any claim that Barth did not believe in a bodily, historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. How Barth thought of history, through Christ, ends up being different than the historicist vision. Even so, for Barth it is bodily, historical, history delimiting and primordial event. The way Barth takes Bultmann to task directly, in…

Is God really knowable, secularly, in the vestiges of the created order? In other words, does God repose in the fallen order to the point that vain and profane people can come to have some type of vestigial knowledge of the living God? According to Thomas Aquinas, and other scholastics of similar ilk, the answer is a resounding: yes. Here is Thomas himself: as we have shown [q. 32, a. 1], the Trinity of persons cannot be demonstratively proven. But it is still congruous to place it in the light of some things which are more manifest to us. And…

Photo copyright of the Karl Barth-Archiv in Basel, Switzerland Almost seven years ago now I wrote a post based on Christiane Tietz’s just released essay (at that point) where she offers some of Karl Barth’s and Charlotte von Kirschbaum’s love letters, translated for the first time from their original German into English. My initial blog post ended up going relatively “viral” in the theo-blogosphere, and eventually, beyond. My post, and then series of posts, was referred to by an article written by Mark Galli at Christianity Today, and then at Mere Orthodoxy and other like outlets online. A little later my…