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.
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.
Evan Boardman: 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.
georgegfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
George Somsel: Evan Boardman: 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.
Evan Boardman: 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.
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.
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, L9
abondservant: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?
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).
"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."
George Somsel: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...
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
George Somsel: abondservant: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.
Ken McGuire: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?
George Somsel:DJ Hall—the football wide receiver?
Douglas John Hall - Canadian Theologian, and author.
abondservant: George Somsel: abondservant: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.
I'll remind you of that in 500 years.
Likely you will still be nearly 39, but I will be too old to remember this conversation by then :)