I'm not very familiar with Barth... Is this something that everyone would want in their library or only a select few?
https://academic.logos.com/barths-entire-church-dogmatics-for-75/
My vote would be... select few, but the price is pretry good!
he was the biggest name theologian of last century among theologians.
Many have criticised him. I have heard that anything helpful he says is said more clearly somewhere else, while what he says that is New... isn’t that helpful.
I find him thought provoking but not a place I turn of I actually want to understand something.
The set was included with Logos Platinum. I have the full set but have not read many of them.
Below is part of the first vol first chapter. So you can get an idea about it.
CHAPTER I
THE WORD OF GOD AS THE CRITERION OF DOGMATICS
§ 3
CHURCH PROCLAMATION AS THE MATERIAL OF DOGMATICS
Talk about God in the Church seeks to be proclamation to the extent that in the form of preaching and sacrament it is directed to man with the claim and expectation that in accordance with its commission it has to speak to him the Word of God to be heard in faith. Inasmuch as it is a human word in spite of this claim and expectation, it is the material of dogmatics, i.e., of the investigation of its responsibility as measured by the Word of God which it seeks to proclaim.
1. TALK ABOUT GOD AND CHURCH PROCLAMATION
Not all human talk is talk about God. It could be and should be. There is no reason in principle why it should not be. God is the Lord from whom and to whom we exist. Even the realities and truths distinct from Him and us which usually form the concrete occasion and subject of human speech exist from Him and to Him. Hence there is no genuinely profane speech. In the last resort, there is only talk about God. Yet serious reflection on human talk about God must take as its starting-point the fact that this is not at all the case, that it is quite impossible to interpret human talk as such as talk about God. We do not know man, i.e., ourselves, as man in his original estate and therefore as the man of the kingdom of glory. Of this man it might well be said that all his talk is talk about God. But we do not know ourselves as this man. We know ourselves only as the man to whom mercy is shown as one who is fallen, lost and condemned. We know ourselves only as man in the kingdom of grace, of the present age between the time of creation and that of redemption. We stand under the sign of a decision constantly taken between the secularity and the sanctification of our existence, between sin and grace, between a being as man which forgets God, which is absolutely neutral in relation to Him and therefore absolutely hostile, and one which in His revelation is awakened by faith to being in the Church, to the appropriation of His promise. This cleavage continually applies, however, to human speech as well. It is not identical with the distinction between secular and religious utterance. Religious utterance is, of course, externally marked off from secular by the fact that God is its more or less explicit theme. It is also marked off internally by the intention expressly or tacitly orientated to this subject, by the more or less sincere purpose, directly or indirectly to speak about God. But the cleavage still takes place intrinsically within secular existence. Neither the subject nor the intention makes human speech sanctified talk about God, just as conversely it does not have to be secular because it does not have this subject or intention. This distinction, like the distinction between a believing and religious and an unbelieving and worldly attitude, is only a symptom, and not even an unequivocal symptom, of the true and final distinction between secular and sanctified existence. Nevertheless, it is a necessary symptom. The ongoing event of the final distinction, the event in which God Himself acts, casts its shadow before in the event of this provisional distinction in which man is at work.
It cannot, therefore, be generally correct to characterise this provisional distinction as the “human cleavage between sacramental daemonism and secular exorcism” (Paul Tillich, Relig. Verwirklichung, 1930, p. 64), To be sure, it is not co-extensive with the divine distinction, and to this extent it can be characterised in such terms. But as a symptom of the divine distinction it can be a pointer to its reality, and it is not, therefore, exhaustively defined in this way. Again, it does not rest on careful discussion if it is stated generally that from God’s standpoint the historical Church has no advantage over historical society, that revelation is addressed equally to society and the Church, and that the “invisible community” can be equally proclaimed and actualised “from the religious and the cultural angles” (P. Tillich, Kirche und Kultur, 1924, p. 10 f., 16 f., 19). Certainly, God is not bound to the historical Church. He is free and able to raise up children to Abraham from the stones. But this does not alter the fact that the antithesis between the Church and society can be a symptom of the divine distinction, and a pointer to its truth, not in the abstract equality but in the concrete inequality of the two sides. Finally, it is wrong to interpret this antithesis in general as basically non-essential (op. cit., p. 9) and thus to make it the subject of a general protest from the standpoint of “the far side of being” (Rel. Verwirklichung, p. 46). For our standpoint is neither the time of creation nor that of redemption, and therefore it is not that of a far side of being. It is the present between the times, the time of the regnum gratiae*, in which the symptom of this human cleavage, for all its ambiguous relativity and its provisional character, can always be highly essential as a pointer to the divine distinction.
The event in which God acts consists wholly in the fact that men are visibly awakened, separated and gathered by God to being in the visible Church. A visible distinction which arises within the secular sphere between religious and profane is now, not intrinsically but in this event of divine election, confirmed and maintained and therefore characterised as a genuine indication of the antithesis of judgment and grace in which, even though men do not act towards others, God Himself acts towards men. Only in faith, of course, is this event visible as such; only in faith is being in the Church visible as divine election and sanctification. What is visible in itself is simply an event within the secular sphere. Its significance can be missed, but it cannot actually be taken away from it again.
“He thus shows with certainty that the preaching of the Gospel is not an eternal, lasting, static doctrine, but like a moving shower of rain which strikes what it strikes and misses what it misses. Nor does it return nor halt, but is followed by the sunshine and warmth which lick it up, etc. Hence our experience that in no place in the world has the Gospel remained pure and simple beyond a man’s memory, but has stood and increased so long as those have remained who brought it, and its light has then gone out when they themselves passed on, being succeeded at once by schismatics and false teachers” (Luther, Fastenpostille, 1525, W.A., 1711, p. 178, l. 28).
The one who is awakened and gathered to being in the Church has every cause for the full assurance of faith, but none at all for certainty or over-confidence.
Why not? Τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν*. (Jn. 1:5). So it is with us.
Barth, K., Bromiley, G. W., & Torrance, T. F. (2004). Church dogmatics: The doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 45–49). London; New York: T&T Clark.
I'm not very familiar with Barth... Is this something that everyone would want in their library or only a select few? https://academic.logos.com/barths-entire-church-dogmatics-for-75/
That price is a steal (Amazon will ask this for paper copies of individual books of the 15 contained in the series!) - I personally couldn't resist when I saw that. Not that I intend to read this cover to cover, but this clearly is something to dip in - and for those doing theological work: to quote from.
I don't think one needs to become a Barthian to read this (after all, I believe Brunner was right in the famous debate), but one wouldn't let the magnus opus of one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century slip by when it is offered at such a great price.
That price is a steal (Amazon will ask this for paper copies of individual books of the 15 contained in the series!) - I personally couldn't resist when I saw that. Not that I intend to read this cover to cover, but this clearly is something to dip in - and for those doing theological work: to quote from. I don't think one needs to become a Barthian to read this (after all, I believe Brunner was right in the famous debate), but one wouldn't let the magnus opus of one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century slip by when it is offered at such a great price.
This is an amazing price, and I would encourage anyone remotely interested to get it. Barth is very profitable to read, even if you don't agree with him (though I've never understood the practice of only reading people you know in advance you'll agree with). Barth gets you to THINK, and he also covers an amazing range of topics over the course of the Dogmatics.
He's not the easiest read, but IMO in comparison to someone like Schleiermacher is a cakewalk. Much of it has great devotional and preaching value. The Logos edition is terrific, a great value even at the higher price many of us have already paid for it. The print edition is huge but has tiny print, and in the Logos edition non-German languages that have not been translated have a mouseover translation.
There's also another practical reward for the thrift-minded: this could get you a huge discount on a future base package via dynamic pricing. I already had this when L6 rolled out, and I got what I felt was a really good deal on Reformed Gold, largely, I think, because I already had this.
If you're at all interested in theology and $75 won't cause a hardship, go for it. It's a steal. (By way of comparison, FL is offering a fresh translation of Schleiermacher's two-volume Christian Faith for $55.)
A lot of the past criticisms leveled against Barth are inaccurate and/or unfair, and too many outsourced their reading of him to C. van Til, who definitely had an axe to grind. I've read characterizations of Barth's theology in tertiary sources that are 180 degrees away from what is clearly presented in the Church Dogmatics.
But he definitely could have been helped a lot by a strict editor... he might have even gotten around to finishing it.
If you will ever read or reference it, grab it now.I blogged the deal today.
Thank you all... I'll take the plunge and try it out for 30 days. $75 does seem like a steal when it is originally listed at $300 or so dollars
I wonder if the reduction has anything to do with tragic revelations from recently released his papers. The fact that he treated his secretary, who helped him write his dogmatics, as an second wife has led some to turn away from his writings on moral rather than theological grounds.
https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/why-i-still-dont-much-care-for-karl-barth/
Not saying the price isn't good, just wondering whether the financial devaluation of his writings might be of a permanent nature.
I wonder if the reduction has anything to do with tragic revelations from recently released his papers. The fact that he treated his secretary, who helped him write his dogmatics, as an second wife has led some to turn away from his writings on moral rather than theological grounds. https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/why-i-still-dont-much-care-for-karl-barth/ Not saying the price isn't good, just wondering whether the financial devaluation of his writings might be of a permanent nature.
Servetus.
just wondering whether the financial devaluation of his writings might be of a permanent nature.
I sincerely doubt that this will be permanent.
The fact that he treated his secretary, who helped him write his dogmatics, as an second wife has led some to turn away from his writings on moral rather than theological grounds.
That is pretty old news. Maybe there has been some more documentation of it, but I had heard about it decades ago.
That said, the truth is still the truth, no matter who says it. The two most important Apostles for the early church were probably St. Peter - who denied the faith under pressure - and St Paul - who was a persecutor of the Church. These were some of the worst moral crimes in the view of 1st century church...
Karl Barth, like him or not, is almost certainly THE most important theologian of the 20th century. His dogmatics includes quite extensive interaction with scripture - so much so that the old print edition had a scripture index for preachers. I got Barth in the prepub at what I then thought was a very good price. $75 is a steal. Yes - you will probably argue with him - and be frustrated where your views are treated in his dialectic. But you will learn too as you and he engage each other.
Ken, well said. The new King David theology is just so effective, and adaptable, too. I'm surprised that it took 3,000 years to be discovered (although some would argue, KDT as it's now known, was created well after King David). But, it would have saved much of the northern kings, most of the judean kings, untold number of judean civil wars, destruction of Jerusalem, and the Catholic papasy. Plus Calvin, to boot! https://www.challies.com/articles/the-servetus-problem/
(though I've never understood the practice of only reading people you know in advance you'll agree with).
Sean, just in case you weren't just having fun, human theologizing is not unlike dogs discussing humans. Each dog is relatively expert, and so, selecting your favorite dog has its merits.
Alternatively, human theologizing is similar to hiking trails on limestone geology. You can pretty much pick any trail, and be wrong, absent a sense of smell or GPS ... why dogs coming along are great.
Anyone know how long this sale will last?
This week only.
Edit: more precisely it will expire on Monday, October 23 at noon (PT)
(as per https://www.logos.com/pastor-appreciation-month )
Looking for some advice on this resource. For background, I am a lay person. I know that I will never read any of these volumes from cover to cover. Is this the type of resource that would provide valuable tagging to supplement topical or passage studies I might do within Logos.
If it is mainly just a book to be read independently of Bible/topic study, I will pass. But on the other hand, if Logos tagging of this resource provides valuable search results when I am studying a topic or passage, then I may be interested.
It sure is a steal. FL charged me $550[:(]
Bryce,
I don't think Barth's Dogmatics would benefit you as much as some other resources. Barth wrote copiously and requires massive reading to understand him in his context. Just following links to what Barth said about a particular biblical passage or topic may help you understand Barth, but the impression you'd get about the topic or passage would be a little lopsided. (This is not a criticism of Barth; it's the nature of his theological work.)
For an alternative resource, the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary is also on sale now and may help add solid content to lots of different types of study within Logos.
Lew
Thanks for the reply. I was thinking the same thing. I have the AYBD in my library and find it very useful.
Bryce, I don't think Barth's Dogmatics would benefit you as much as some other resources. Barth wrote copiously and requires massive reading to understand him in his context. Just following links to what Barth said about a particular biblical passage or topic may help you understand Barth, but the impression you'd get about the topic or passage would be a little lopsided. (This is not a criticism of Barth; it's the nature of his theological work.) For an alternative resource, the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary is also on sale now and may help add solid content to lots of different types of study within Logos. Lew
Regarding practical usage, the index volume contains a 'preacher's aid' ... basically thumbnails on the sections. So, even though the gentleman never sat through a staff meeting ('get to the point!'), you can pretty quickly nail down the appropriate section.
I'll likely get a refund ... his 'scientific' systematizationing begins on or about the date of the massorete text. Which means he's competing with the Navajo's Talking God (Tony Hillerman).
That, plus there's something wrong in the indices, badly dragging with 30% of my CPU. Call it in.
Virtually a must-buy at $75.
Hopefully we will one day see Barth's Romans in the Faithlife family, too: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/78032/907048.aspx#907048 I finally broke down and got in in another format, but I remain hopeful that we will one day be able to add it to our Logos libraries.
Virtually a must-buy at $75. Hopefully we will one day see Barth's Romans in the Faithlife family, too: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/78032/907048.aspx#907048 I finally broke down and got in in another format, but I remain hopeful that we will one day be able to add it to our Logos libraries.
I've been very vocal about this one. I frankly don't see it ever happening. It's not been on CP or Prepub. Rights have been hard to get. I have a personal version I put into Logos.
If Barf's Dogmatics had not been in an upgrade I'd give it to you.
Virtually a must-buy at $75. Hopefully we will one day see Barth's Romans in the Faithlife family, too: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/78032/907048.aspx#907048 I finally broke down and got in in another format, but I remain hopeful that we will one day be able to add it to our Logos libraries. I've been very vocal about this one. I frankly don't see it ever happening. It's not been on CP or Prepub. Rights have been hard to get. I have a personal version I put into Logos.
Many of us appreciate your advocacy for that resource, Everett. Don't give up the good fight!
[:D]
That made me laugh! On a serious note, may I ask why you don't like him?
The fact that he treated his secretary, who helped him write his dogmatics, as an second wife has led some to turn away from his writings on moral rather than theological grounds. That is pretty old news. Maybe there has been some more documentation of it, but I had heard about it decades ago.
This blog post states the journal Theology Today published in 2016 an article detailing the relationship between Barth and his secretary. So yes, there is recent news.
the journal Theology Today published in 2016 an article detailing the relationship between Barth and his secretary. So yes, there is recent news.
well, maybe sort of. Actually it was known, and now has been brought up once again. Mark Galli, a Barth biographer, writes about it just yesterday in CT. Basically he comes down to saying that there's no human hero untainted by sin but the God-man Jesus Christ - however:
I still recommend Barth’s theology, but as I said in my book, it’s not because he had the right answer to every theological question. He must be read critically, as we read any great thinker, probing whether his thought is consistent with the teaching of Scripture. And as I said in my book, Barth is probably most helpful not because of the answers he gives, but because he—more than most theologians—prods one to think theologically and, especially, biblically. He never sought to raise up a school of Barthians but instead a school of thoughtful Christians grounded in the Word of God.
[ Mark Galli, a Barth biographer, writes about it just yesterday in CT. Basically he comes down to saying that there's no human hero untainted by sin ...
That's a key component and wonderful use of King David theology. All sins are theologically the same, and ergo everyone does it. The apostle Paul, of course, couldn't handle more sin is even is better. Early jewish theologians did note more forgiveness now, meant less in heaven, but that was without the benefits of KDT.
meh
From the The Evangelical Calvinist blog :
Tietz’s essay works through some letters sent back and forth between Barth and Kirschbaum; they are letters that Barth’s own elderly children, not too long ago, felt compelled to share with the public. What they reveal is that Kirschbaum and Barth loved each other; more than that, they were lovers; more than that, Barth brought her to live in his own home with his wife and five kids. Barth was not willing to give Kirschbaum up, and it almost (it should’ve, in my opinion, and would’ve in any kind of normal situation) came to divorce between Barth and his wife Nelly; but for some reason (I’d guess for the kids), Nelly stayed with Barth in this intolerable situation. Tietz’s essay offers much more disturbing detail than I have only quipped at here, but even what I’ve noted should be enough to cause alarm.
What impact does this have on me personally? I mean we’ve moved from rumors to fact and reality. As I read Tietz’s essay I actually had a physical response; my head was literally spinning, and I felt sick to my stomach. I’ve been a very vocal proponent for Barth’s theology, online, for many years now, and this news leaves me feeling disillusioned (that’s really an understatement). As I process this news, this substantiation of rumor (about the love relationship between Barth and Kirschbaum), part of that processing includes the idea that indeed, we are all sinners. And this is true, of course; every theologian any of us will ever read are deeply flawed complex people who need the grace of God in their lives every moment of every day. But the situation with Barth is different. Initially he and Kirschbaum knew their relationship was wrong, but that didn’t ultimately matter to either of them. Instead they learned to rationalize their situation, and even used theological and biblical concepts to do that; to the point that Barth and Kirschbaum felt comfortable and motivated enough to move Kirschbaum into his house with his wife and five children. This is not right. Beyond that, Kirschbaum actually was Barth’s secretary/researcher/academic assistant, and so as I read his Church Dogmatics, or many of his other writings, what is now in the back of my head is the idea that all of these writings were written in the context of his relationship with Kirschbaum; indeed it was fostered and given impetus by his relationship with her, as he bounced and worked his ideas off of Kirschbaum in his study and elsewhere.
and his follow-up post My Final Post, Ever, On Karl Barth and Charlotte von Kirschbaum
and another worthwhile read from the Mere Orthodoxy blog
This is, of course, a bad business and very disappointing from someone who otherwise did a lot of good. It is also, again, not exactly new news.
But speaking of affairs, what about the affair of Michael Servetus? Does it affect your reading of Calvin?
Sean,
Here you go on The Servetus Affair
Unrepented sin is not the same as all other sin.
King David repented. Paul repented. Peter repented. Calvin repented.
Any evidence that Karl Barth repented? Anything? Anyone?
James White on the Servetus affair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbBozoYGz1w
I'm not a Calvinist - on the contrary, I see severe flaws in Calvinism. However, it is disgusting how some individuals from various camps condemn Calvin without in any way acknowleding the historical context properly.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
