Barth - should he be included in Reformed Diamond?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613757#Comment_613757

from Wikipedia: Although Barth's theology rejected German Protestant liberalism, his theology has usually not found favour with those at the other end of the theological spectrum: confessionalists and fundamentalists.

from Theopedia: Karl Barth (May 10, 1886 - Dec 10, 1968) pronounced "Bart", was a 20th century Swiss theologian in the Reformed tradition. A vigorous opponent of theological liberalism and modernism, he is sometimes called "the Father of Neo-Orthodoxy."

Your list is heavily slanted towards American theology. You need to think of Barth as within the European tradition (Bavinck being a generation or so earlier). Given that Barth and Tillich were required reading at my college because of their influence, I suggest you actually read Barth. Or at a minimum read a overview of his theology written by a European.

Milkman

Fair enough. I'm not opposed to reading him but give me a direction regarding this: "Or at a minimum read a overview of his theology written by a European."

from Wikipedia: Although Barth's theology rejected German Protestant liberalism, his theology has usually not found favour with those at the other end of the theological spectrum: confessionalists and fundamentalists.

Your list is heavily slanted towards American theology. You need to think of Barth as within the European tradition (Bavinck being a generation or so earlier). Given that Barth and Tillich were required reading at my college because of their influence, I suggest you actually read Barth. Or at a minimum read a overview of his theology written by a European.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613759#Comment_613759

The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barth's Theology by Eberhard Busch (Author), Darrell L. Guder (Editor), Judith J. Guder (Editor), William H. Rader (Translator) has been recommended by someone I trust. What I've read about (rather than by) Barth is out of print.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613761#Comment_613761

well it's sixteen dollar as a kindle. would you say it's your best suggestion?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613762#Comment_613762

It is - you might check with Loome's for a used copy.

elnwood

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613766#Comment_613766

I've just started reading Church Dogmatics. From what I've read so far, Barth quotes Luther and Calvin a lot.

Most reformed evangelicals today don't consider Barth "Reformed" because he deviates from the Reformed tradition on key points, but this is the tradition from which Barth is writing.

Mark Barnes

I'm not looking for a theological back and forth, but looking for suggestions to help me understand not only his theology (short of reading him) but comments from others where his theology diverges from classical reformed theology.

In Logos, I'd recommend https://www.logos.com/product/9108/karl-barth-and-evangelical-theology-convergences-and-divergences or (for a simpler read) https://www.logos.com/product/41587/the-spck-introduction-to-karl-barth (though the latter is written by a non-evangelical baptist).

There are a lot of books on reading Barth in Logos.

I have read all of Barth's Church Dogmatics. (In Logos, which is the only way I'd recommend to do it; it's far superior to the unwieldy print editions.)

Barth was not a liberal; this is usually used as a slander to dismiss his thought. He was in fact the opposite of a liberal, properly & historically defined. In being not-a-liberal he was also not a fundamentalist, which made a lot of people unhappy.

He definitely theologized from within the Reformed tradition. In my estimation, what he did that set him apart was exaggerate certain principles of Reformed thought and stretch them to their uttermost extremes. Some of the conclusions he thereby reached conflicted with more mainstream Reformed opinions that didn't take things as far. For a familiar, if not the best, example of this, consider his rejection of natural theology--mainstream Reformed theology does not give it as much importance as Roman Catholic theology does but refrains from doing away with it altogether. Barth, who takes "Solus Christus" exceedingly seriously, doesn't hesitate to do so and follows up on its implications.

In trying to learn about Barth, I would avoid trying to do it from hostile secondary or tertiary sources--there's a lot of bad information floating around out there about him, more so than with other controversial figures. Don't base your opinion of him on the basis of Van Til or people who read Barth only through Van Til. Really there's no substitute for reading the CD itself. (I found Busch to be a major slog to read, much more so than Barth himself.)

I would think that Barth would be a great addition to Reformed Diamond, the example par excellence that the tradition is not a monolith. There's really a lot of good stuff in there, even if you don't agree with all of it (no one does). I always advise people not to miss out on thousands of pages of very good theology for the sake of maybe a hundred pages they won't like. At times Barth is down right exhilarating, and his faith and love for Christ shine through this important work.

(Disclosure: I am not reformed but am a theologian who does read a lot of Reformed theology because, let's face it, y'all write most of the books. [;)])

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613799#Comment_613799

Thanks Sean.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613799#Comment_613799

I always advise people not to miss out on thousands of pages of very good theology for the sake of maybe a hundred pages they won't like. At times Barth is down right exhilarating, and his faith and love for Christ shine through this important work.

Wise words. Thanks.

(Disclosure: I am not reformed but am a theologian who does read a lot of Reformed theology because, let's face it, y'all write most of the books. )

[:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613801#Comment_613801

Ive been reading Ridderbos and hes been quoting Barth in favorable light.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613799#Comment_613799

I would think that Barth would be a great addition to Reformed Diamond, the example par excellence that the tradition is not a monolith. There's really a lot of good stuff in there, even if you don't agree with all of it (no one does). I always advise people not to miss out on thousands of pages of very good theology for the sake of maybe a hundred pages they won't like. At times Barth is down right exhilarating, and his faith and love for Christ shine through this important work.

[Y][Y]

This Lutheran found that one of the classes in school in which I learned the MOST about the faith was the one I had on Karl Barth. Yes, I learned by disagreeing with him. And while disagreeing with him I also found how deeply Reformed he is (and I am not) AND learned to respect the Reformed deeply. As Sean states, Reformed theology is not an monolith. Barth is a bit different than the Old Princeton school, but there has always been a bit of variety in the Reformed. I thought that is why there are so many different confessional standards out there...

I certainly understand how some can take some views he has on an issue and reject them - and even label it as a vestige of his "Liberal" education. But he is a theological giant of the somewhat recent past. He belongs in Reformed Diamond. As Sean basically says, there is no substitute to actually digging into CD. But I would actually recommend that you start with a shorter work - like Dogmatics in Outline, or Evangelical Theology.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613816#Comment_613816

I (as an american) have had a similar relationship with barth. As an undergrad at bible college he was just dismissed as a liberal. At the seminary level he wasn't even mentioned. This does pique my curiosity. I may pick up the larger tome and read along with it along side my studies just for curiosities sake.

Mitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613816#Comment_613816

But I would actually recommend that you start with a shorter work - like Dogmatics in Outline, or Evangelical Theology.

Seconded. Evangelical Theology was a formative book for me,and I go back to it regularly whenever I start to get burned out or jaded. In a way it's an introduction to Barth's theology, but more than that it's an introduction into Barth's way of doing theology. And I don't just mean theological method, I mean the attitude with which he comes to it. For Barth, theology is worship, and that orientation shines through on every page of that book.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613816#Comment_613816

But I would actually recommend that you start with a shorter work - like Dogmatics in Outline, or Evangelical Theology.

Just in case anyone else is like me and wants to see these here are active links to make it easier to look at these resources.

http://www.amazon.com/Dogmatics-Outline-Karl-Barth/dp/006130056X

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Theology-Introduction-Karl-Barth/dp/0802818196

Too bad these are not available in Logos (yet).

Edit: I just posted a suggestion to this end in the suggestions forum.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613839#Comment_613839

I would also recommend reading G. C. Berkhouwer https://www.logos.com/product/4238/studies-in-dogmatics

fgh

would we say that he is 'reformed' like Packer, Sproul, horton or Bavinck

To me that's an extremely strange question. If someone asked me to name three Reformed theologians, I would probably say Calvin, Zwingli and Barth. I suspect most people I know who know some theology would say the same. I doubt I had even heard of those others before joining this forum. In other words, in much of the theological world, Barth is the modern Reformed theologian.

y'all write most of the books

???

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613799#Comment_613799

In trying to learn about Barth, I would avoid trying to do it from hostile secondary or tertiary sources

While it is good to go to the source, seeing why others say he's not Reformed in his thinking is also helpful. Not yet in Logos, but in Vyrso is a good book that explains one reason Barth isnt Reformed in his thinking, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms by David Van Drunen.

Greg

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613799#Comment_613799

I have read all of Barth's Church Dogmatics. (In Logos, which is the only way I'd recommend to do it; it's far superior to the unwieldy print editions.)

Sean,

How long did it take you to read it all? What was your overall strategy?

I have it in Logos and have been wondering about tackling it soon.

Thanks!

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613872#Comment_613872

would we say that he is 'reformed' like Packer, Sproul, horton or Bavinck

To me that's an extremely strange question. If someone asked me to name three Reformed theologians, I would probably say Calvin, Zwingli and Barth. I suspect most people I know who know some theology would say the same. I doubt I had even heard of those others before joining this forum. In other words, in much of the theological world, Barth is the modern Reformed theologian.

[:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613899#Comment_613899

would we say that he is 'reformed' like Packer, Sproul, horton or Bavinck

To me that's an extremely strange question. If someone asked me to name three Reformed theologians, I would probably say Calvin, Zwingli and Barth. I suspect most people I know who know some theology would say the same. I doubt I had even heard of those others before joining this forum. In other words, in much of the theological world, Barth is the modern Reformed theologian.

I did say something about "European" [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613896#Comment_613896

I have read all of Barth's Church Dogmatics. (In Logos, which is the only way I'd recommend to do it; it's far superior to the unwieldy print editions.)

Sean,

How long did it take you to read it all? What was your overall strategy?

I have it in Logos and have been wondering about tackling it soon.

Thanks!

5 yrs 3 mo 15 days & 6 hrs. Just kidding, but it is massive.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613914#Comment_613914

I have read all of Barth's Church Dogmatics. (In Logos, which is the only way I'd recommend to do it; it's far superior to the unwieldy print editions.)

Sean,

How long did it take you to read it all? What was your overall strategy?

I have it in Logos and have been wondering about tackling it soon.

Thanks!

5 yrs 3 mo 15 days & 6 hrs. Just kidding, but it is massive.

That's actually a pretty close estimate--5 or 6 years at least with sometimes extensive breaks.

I didn't have a reading plan. I just started at the beginning and read till the end, making a bookmark as I went. I tried to cover about 10-20 pages a day. For a long, long time Barth was my morning devotional reading. It was a good time!

I keep notes and quotes in Nota Bene. For each volume I have 20-30 pages.

elnwood

I think Reformed Diamond is where Barth belongs ... and not in Reformed Platinum or below.

For the lower base packages, you want to have those Reformed theologians that are essential for understanding the Reformed tradition: Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Berkhof, and others. Those belong in Reformed Starter, Bronze, Silver, or Gold.

But Reformed Diamond is a luxury purchase, and Barth's Church Dogmatics exactly that -- nonessential for understanding the Reformed tradition, and too difficult to read for the beginning Reformed theologian. But for those already grounded in Reformed thought, and who have the interest in exploring the borders of Reformed thought and the cash to purchase it, Barth's Church Dogmatics is a natural choice.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614108#Comment_614108

Reformed Diamond is a luxury purchase, and Barth's Church Dogmatics exactly that -- nonessential for understanding the Reformed tradition, and too difficult to read for the beginning Reformed theologian.

Well said elnwood. I think you are right on with this.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614114#Comment_614114

elnwood, that's an amazing comment. First, I'm not reformed (nor un-reformed) so I don't care. But I had considered purchasing Barth since he gets 'hit' constantly in my readings. But then I thought .... wait .... he's a luxury purchase non-essential for the understanding the Reformed tradition.

Whew.

Just joking but what could you possibly mean? I spend a lot more on a lot less influential authors. And I suspect that the Reformed packages have a passle of authors no one's ever heard of.

Greg

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613936#Comment_613936

That's actually a pretty close estimate--5 or 6 years at least with sometimes extensive breaks.

I didn't have a reading plan. I just started at the beginning and read till the end, making a bookmark as I went. I tried to cover about 10-20 pages a day. For a long, long time Barth was my morning devotional reading. It was a good time!

I keep notes and quotes in Nota Bene. For each volume I have 20-30 pages.

Cool! What was your criteria for taking notes and quotes? How did you organize them, if you don't mind me asking?

I've just started using Logos for casual reading and note taking, but I'm finding the note taking portion of the program, at least on the iPad, not ideal, and I'm looking into other solutions.

Nota Bene seems like a neat program for Windows. I may consider it. Have you ever used OneNote?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614108#Comment_614108

For the lower base packages, you want to have those Reformed theologians that are essential for understanding the Reformed tradition:

What I find fascinating is that my secular college considered Barth so fundamental to culture and religion that he was required reading. And subsequently he has been a theologian that I have run into with a frequency to the point I can't imagine trying to understand any contemporary theology without a basic understanding of Barth.

Did Warfield have much influence outside the US reformed circles? I've never run into a need to know him.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614146#Comment_614146

For the lower base packages, you want to have those Reformed theologians that are essential for understanding the Reformed tradition:

What I find fascinating is that my secular college considered Barth so fundamental to culture and religion that he was required reading. And subsequently he has been a theologian that I have run into with a frequency to the point I can't imagine trying to understand any contemporary theology without a basic understanding of Barth.

Did Warfield have much influence outside the US reformed circles? I've never run into a need to know him.

My systematics professor in the cemetery studied under Barth. He was continually trying to counter him, but that made Barth even more interesting. I tend to think that any systematician in the coming years who doesn't deal adequately with Barth will be found wanting (not that I agree with him in all respects). I had a chance to hear Barth in Chicago 2-3 yrs ago <smile, you know I'm lying>. I think that what Aquinas and Calvin were to the church in their time will be what Barth is to modern Christianity—a sine qua non.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614155#Comment_614155

Heres a question, what think ye of Tim Keller? Is he Reformed? He and Barth travel in the same boat, when it comes to Natural Law and Kingdom Theology.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614160#Comment_614160

Heres a question, what think ye of Tim Keller?

I rarely think of him - he's only a name to me. I've not read anything by him. I've seen maybe one article about him in secular publications; I've never run into him in a footnote or bibliography that made me think I needed to know anything about him.

Is James P. Carse Reformed? of non-Catholic American theologians he's the one I remember recommending most frequently.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614160#Comment_614160

Heres a question, what think ye of Tim Keller? Is he Reformed? He and Barth travel in the same boat, when it comes to Natural Law and Kingdom Theology.

Keller's a Presbyterian, so he's confessionally reformed. If you want more insight, this book is probably your best bet (not in Logos though).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614179#Comment_614179

Wow! A book about Tim Keller!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614130#Comment_614130

That's actually a pretty close estimate--5 or 6 years at least with sometimes extensive breaks.

I didn't have a reading plan. I just started at the beginning and read till the end, making a bookmark as I went. I tried to cover about 10-20 pages a day. For a long, long time Barth was my morning devotional reading. It was a good time!

I keep notes and quotes in Nota Bene. For each volume I have 20-30 pages.

Cool! What was your criteria for taking notes and quotes? How did you organize them, if you don't mind me asking?

I've just started using Logos for casual reading and note taking, but I'm finding the note taking portion of the program, at least on the iPad, not ideal, and I'm looking into other solutions.

Nota Bene seems like a neat program for Windows. I may consider it. Have you ever used OneNote?

Greg, Nota Bene, in its Lingua Workstation form, is a complete academic word processor with bibliography management and Orbis, a "note-retrieval and information processing module." You enter a work into the biblio database once for all of your citations. With it you can associate notes files that are completely searchable (though not with all the operators that Logos has). I make one of these for every book I read.

With a Logos book like Barth's CD, I just put down the page number and copy & paste interesting quotes with my comments. Lately I've taken to adding #hashtags to quotes just in case they don't contain a likely keyword that I'd search for in the future. It's like Google for your word processing files.

I do this for my paper books as well, basically to have all my information in one place. I've never used OneNote nor have I used Logos's note-taking functions. (I was stuck with Libronix when I started using Nota Bene for my theses.)

A lot of Christian scholars use Nota Bene. I know N.T. Wright does, plus I think they have some sort of tie-up with the SBL. It is mostly suitable for academic writings and lengthier works; an "Office-type" word processor is nicer for shorter/less formal ones. One of the best things things about it is that cut & paste Greek and Hebrew from Logos transfer perfectly into Nota Bene without any formatting problems.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/613883#Comment_613883

Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms by David Van Drunen

Not yet in Logos, but in Vyrso is a good book

It use to be in Vyrso, but I dont see it there anymore? [:(]

elnwood

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614119#Comment_614119

elnwood, that's an amazing comment. First, I'm not reformed (nor un-reformed) so I don't care. But I had considered purchasing Barth since he gets 'hit' constantly in my readings. But then I thought .... wait .... he's a luxury purchase non-essential for the understanding the Reformed tradition.

Whew.

Just joking but what could you possibly mean? I spend a lot more on a lot less influential authors. And I suspect that the Reformed packages have a passle of authors no one's ever heard of.

For the lower base packages, you want to have those Reformed theologians that are essential for understanding the Reformed tradition:

What I find fascinating is that my secular college considered Barth so fundamental to culture and religion that he was required reading. And subsequently he has been a theologian that I have run into with a frequency to the point I can't imagine trying to understand any contemporary theology without a basic understanding of Barth.

Did Warfield have much influence outside the US reformed circles? I've never run into a need to know him.

Denise and MJ,

I suspect that a large reason why you consider Barth more important and influential than the other Reformed theologians is because you aren't Reformed, and because you read theology for interest and pleasure, not for ministry.

Yes, Warfield did not have much influence outside Reformed circles, but truth be told, Barth hasn't had much influence among Reformed evangelicals either -- hence, the question was asked why he was in the package to begin with!

I suspect you consider Barth important because you read a lot of theology. Yes, Barth is influential among theologians and academics. Yes, Barth is important for understanding "contemporary theology." But Barth's importance and influence is minimal among evangelical Reformed pastors and lay ministers, and these are the people for whom the Reformed base packages are targeted. You don't need to understand Barth to understand Reformed theology.

For you heavy-lifting theologian-types with lots of cash to spend and aren't working for peanuts in ministry, behold, Barth's Church Dogmatics is there for you in the Reformed Diamond package! But for those of us committed to laboring in teaching the Word, and teach from an evangelical Reformed background, I say reading Barth's Church Dogmatics is a luxury.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614601#Comment_614601

Warfield did not have much influence outside Reformed circles

Question: Did Warfield have much influence outside the English-speaking world?

Just to set the record straight - my primary interests are in liturgical theology and scripture study methodology. Most of the systematic theology I have read was assigned[:$] And people who retired a decade ago on a state pension don't have "lots of cash". And yes, my ministriy never represented more than 20 hours a week although at one time there was an intention to go full time.

I say reading Barth's Church Dogmatics is a luxury.

I've worked with students from regions of the world where Bibles to read are a luxury.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614615#Comment_614615

In regards to Warfield, what he should be known for is his great work against Perfectism. I know no one who has done this better than him.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614619#Comment_614619

In regards to Warfield, what he should be known for is his great work against Perfectism. I know no one who has done this better than him.

If you attend a cemetery which teaches more than you can get at daily vacation bible school, you should know Barth, Tillich and Brunner. It would also be a good idea for them to teach some of the developments in Catholic theology such as Vatican II. I've never considered Warfield to be that greatly important. You note "evangelical reformed"—yes, fundamentalists like him.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614621#Comment_614621

George, you highlighted what I said in regards to Warfield as why he should be important and then made quotes of things I've never said.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614635#Comment_614635

Barth is widely regarded as one of the five most important of all (Western) theologians (the other four being Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin, and Schleiermacher--there's really not much dispute over these five, though there will be if you try to expand the list to 10 [:)]). In many ways, he was a sort of Cassandra--he overwhelming showed that continental liberal theology of his time could not continue on its then trajectory, but few accepted his recommended corrections. On the other hand, he was unfairly reviled and dismissed by the right wing, especially in America. Many unfortunately chose to outsource their reading of him to Van Til, and that was that. Yet, much that Barth warned about was prophetic. He still speaks relevantly to our Christianity today, and I'm personally of the opinion that many of the problems facing contemporary evangelicalism could have been avoided if Barth had been given a fair hearing. (Though he is partially to blame for that--Church Dogmatics could have been a few thousand pages shorter and lost nothing in terms of thoroughness.)

One thing that astounded me so much (and, frankly, shook my trust in certain branches of theological scholarship) while reading Barth was coming across clear statements that flatly contradicted what other writers claimed that Barth believed. His theology is solely focused on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, built around a covenantal structure, and deterministic and monergistic in soteriology. He ably defended the Trinity, the authority of the Bible, the deity, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. What's not to appreciate about that? (Yes, there are some parts you won't appreciate, but they come to a hundred or so pages as most.)

There's a lot more to the Reformed tradition than Old Princeton--quite a bit more--and I'll leave this where it is just saying you real owe yourself, and the dignity of this rich tradition, to look around outside that box a little. I am also one who teaches the Word, but for quite a bit less than "peanuts." I regret not the least bit picking up Barth's CD cheaply when it was on pre-pub, nor the time and energy it took for me to read through it. It did wonders both for my ministry and my personal faith. I am glad that Logos is doing what it can to make this valuable work more widely known and read in the church.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614635#Comment_614635

George, you highlighted what I said in regards to Warfield as why he should be important and then made quotes of things I've never said.

I wasn't aware that I either quoted anything you said or purported to do so.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614621#Comment_614621

In regards to Warfield, what he should be known for is his great work against Perfectism. I know no one who has done this better than him.

If you attend a cemetery which teaches more than you can get at daily vacation bible school, you should know Barth, Tillich and Brunner. It would also be a good idea for them to teach some of the developments in Catholic theology such as Vatican II. I've never considered Warfield to be that greatly important. You note "evangelical reformed"—yes, fundamentalists like him.

Thats strong tea there George. There are entire denominational streams - some that are somewhat reformed - that don't engage barth at all in their seminaries.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614753#Comment_614753

Thats strong tea there George. There are entire denominational streams - some that are somewhat reformed - that don't engage barth at all in their seminaries.

Then they are doing a great disservice to their students and the denominations they will serve. Would you ignore Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614765#Comment_614765

Well, yes, now that you ask. My theologians are Clement, Barnabas, the Twelve, and of course Ignatius (depending on what he might have wrote or not).

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614621#Comment_614621

If you attend a cemetery which teaches more than you can get at daily vacation bible school, you should know Barth, Tillich and Brunner. It would also be a good idea for them to teach some of the developments in Catholic theology such as Vatican II.

Hmm - I attended a mainline school and Brunner was barely mentioned. I never read him. And Tillich was peripheral - read more of him in undergrad. Barth was important, but so was Pannenberg, Moltmann, DJ Hall, and Robbert Jenson. Then there were the feminists and various 2/3rds world figures...

Pretty sure I would want to add Volf and Wright nowadays...

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614765#Comment_614765

Thats strong tea there George. There are entire denominational streams - some that are somewhat reformed - that don't engage barth at all in their seminaries.

Then they are doing a great disservice to their students and the denominations they will serve. Would you ignore Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley?

When Barth makes the difference that Calvin et al did, perhaps then your words would carry more weight with me.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614778#Comment_614778

Hmm - I attended a mainline school and Brunner was barely mentioned. I never read him. And Tillich was peripheral - read more of him in undergrad. Barth was important, but so was Pannenberg, Moltmann, DJ Hall, and Robbert Jenson. Then there were the feminists and various 2/3rds world

DJ Hall—the football wide receiver?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/614781#Comment_614781

DJ Hall—the football wide receiver?

Douglas John Hall - Canadian Theologian, and author.