Back to Blogging | Busy-ness | Barth
Reading: Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
Enjoying: warm San Diego weather
Listening: Indelible Grace
I apologize for the lack of blogging here at What the Thunder Said... There has been far too little of it, a fact we hope to correct. That being said, this is the worst of weeks to renew one's commitment to blogging, for its going to be quite the hectic week.
This week features ETS and AAR/SBL conferences in San Diego later this week, and Dr. Bauckham will be taking some time out to lecture on campus. There are tests and a project due next week, as well as concerts and birthday parties.
One item on the docket is tomorrow's Warfield Lecture with WSC alum Ryan Glomsrud. He'll be lecturing from a recent project of his entitled "Barth's Reception of Calvin zwischen den Zeiten". He interacts with Barth's initial introduction to Calvin, especially as a "cultural critique" allied with the likes of Plato, Nietzche, Dostoyevsky, and Kierkegaard against the neo-Protestantism of his day. I'm especially interested in what he has to say regarding the dialectical approach of Platonic onto-theology in meta-ethics vs. Calvin's de-ontological ethics (pun intended).
Now here's where I need help. I need all you quasi- and closet Barthians to let me know some questions to ask to press Mr. Glomsrud. What concerns do you have of Barth's use of Calvin? How does Barth's attempt at meta-ethics and ontologizing history escape the problem of Schleiermacher and modernity (or fail to escape)? What kind of influence did Calvin have on Barth's Romerbrief? Broader issues in Calvin, Barth, or methodology of 1920's historical theology? All these and more I need questions for. Have any questions you would pose? Leave any suggestions in the comments.
sorry for the short notice...
Tags
[Calvin]
| [Barth]
[Calvin] | [Barth]Labels: blogging, theology, WtTS Stuff
I feel as though you've just called me a quasi or a closet Barthian. Can I be both. Otherwise, I'd like to be known as a pseudo-Barthian, which really means I'm a Calvinist who spies on the enemy, a sort of double agent.
Actually, though, I don't know enough to even ask a good question. I've read very little, though I am looking forward to the new book coming out where Horton, Trueman and others print their interactions with his thought.
I will say that some of the best stuff I've read on the analogy of faith have come from Barth. The interaction he had with Urs Von Bathlaasar was amazing, what little of it I've read anyway. I've thought that when some Reformed people read his thoughts on this they seem to be reading him through Junius' eyes and not considering Barth's context properly, but I'm probably wrong on that.
I guess I would ask, "What substantial difference(s) is(are) there between Barth's articulation of the analogy of faith as well as his disdain for the analogy of being and that of Calvin and his heirs?"
I would also push him to define just what Barth he is talking about. As I understand it, Barth's existentialism underwent a significant change (death?) either during or just before his Dogmatics. I've heard it said that this is almost always missed by those who find themselves in stark disagreement with him. It seems to me that if this is true, his dialectic would have had to change or die too, but I've never had an adequate answer to that question from those who are saying this.
Hey, do you have a voice recorder or will this talk be available online? Will he be presenting a paper? I'd love to learn more.
Posted by
Ben Dahlvang |
11/13/2007 03:17:00 PM
Just found out Glomsrud contributed to that book. Cool.
Posted by
Ben Dahlvang |
11/13/2007 03:25:00 PM
Thank you, that was just an awesome post!!!
Posted by
Dr. Ramanjit Singh |
5/02/2018 08:00:00 AM
Thanks for sharing that. It was fun reading it. :-)
Posted by
Hiatal Hernia |
6/07/2018 02:52:00 AM
Thanks for sharing that. It was fun reading it. :-)
Posted by
Dr. Prasanna Kumar Reddy |
7/14/2018 03:33:00 AM