Discussion on Karl Barth's The Epistle to the Romans.

[Dominus vobiscum]

Hi folks,

I'd love to foster a discussion on various theology books (I'm a bit of a book worm). I just finished K. Barth's Epistle to the Romans. I hail from the Anglican Catholic (Oxford movement) tradition but have a strong interest in reformed theology as well. These are some of my thoughts and I'd love to hear others perspectives who are versed in theological literature (my background is in Catholic and Classical Jewish Theology). In some ways it was an excellent rebuttal of liberal christianity and orthodox reformed protestantism. Barth's work seems to treat Christ's resurrection as unknowable noumena, threatening to sever the founding event from the church and symbolic tradition founded on it. This presents a number of similar (and dangerous) implications as much of liberal christian thought, which often attempts to find ways to make sense of Christ's ressurection without validating its historical necessity. I also read it a a deeply ant-catholic work in a lot of the ways it relates belief to classical notions of reason.
Anyway love to hear other people's thoughts on the work, including those who found it more of a positive contribution to Christian Theology than I do (which doesn't mean it isnt fascinating and valuable to study).

 

[JM]

Hi folks,

I'd love to foster a discussion on various theology books (I'm a bit of a book worm). I just finished K. Barth's Epistle to the Romans. I hail from the Anglican Catholic (Oxford movement) tradition but have a strong interest in reformed theology as well. These are some of my thoughts and I'd love to hear others perspectives who are versed in theological literature (my background is in Catholic and Classical Jewish Theology). In some ways it was an excellent rebuttal of liberal christianity and orthodox reformed protestantism. Barth's work seems to treat Christ's resurrection as unknowable noumena, threatening to sever the founding event from the church and symbolic tradition founded on it. This presents a number of similar (and dangerous) implications as much of liberal christian thought, which often attempts to find ways to make sense of Christ's ressurection without validating its historical necessity. I also read it a a deeply ant-catholic work in a lot of the ways it relates belief to classical notions of reason.
Anyway love to hear other people's thoughts on the work, including those who found it more of a positive contribution to Christian Theology than I do (which doesn't mean it isnt fascinating and valuable to study).

I own his Church Dogmatics set but never read him.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hi folks,

I'd love to foster a discussion on various theology books (I'm a bit of a book worm). I just finished K. Barth's Epistle to the Romans. I hail from the Anglican Catholic (Oxford movement) tradition but have a strong interest in reformed theology as well. These are some of my thoughts and I'd love to hear others perspectives who are versed in theological literature (my background is in Catholic and Classical Jewish Theology). In some ways it was an excellent rebuttal of liberal christianity and orthodox reformed protestantism. Barth's work seems to treat Christ's resurrection as unknowable noumena, threatening to sever the founding event from the church and symbolic tradition founded on it. This presents a number of similar (and dangerous) implications as much of liberal christian thought, which often attempts to find ways to make sense of Christ's ressurection without validating its historical necessity. I also read it a a deeply ant-catholic work in a lot of the ways it relates belief to classical notions of reason.
Anyway love to hear other people's thoughts on the work, including those who found it more of a positive contribution to Christian Theology than I do (which doesn't mean it isnt fascinating and valuable to study).

My main frustration with Barth is his lack of interest in Patristics and Church Tradition - he cared less about it than John Calvin, who was very heavily invested in Patristic thought, as were many early Reformed theologians, to the extent that the phrase consensus patrum is actually of Reformed origin. They may have read the wrong writers, for example, the Iconoclast councils and latrocinia, on several occasions, but at least they made an effort to understand what the early church was thinking.

But I do appreciate the positive effects of Barth’s neo-Orthodoxy in shutting down liberalism within Reformed theological communities. You can no longer say that the UCC or the PCUSA function within the realm of Reformed theology; Barth has essentially put up a roadblock.

 

[The Liturgist]

I own his Church Dogmatics set but never read him.

I lost my set of Church Dogmatics so I might be interested in acquiring yours at some point, except shipping costs would be a pain, wouldn’t they? I am more likely to try to find it in ebook form at this point since I don’t frequently use it and it is so voluminous, and my rebuilt library is already running into a shortage of space.

 

[JM]

I lost my set of Church Dogmatics so I might be interested in acquiring yours at some point, except shipping costs would be a pain, wouldn’t they? I am more likely to try to find it in ebook form at this point since I don’t frequently use it and it is so voluminous, and my rebuilt library is already running into a shortage of space.

My set is new with only one name written in them, if you want them send me a message and we can talk. I didn't pay a lot so I only want what I paid.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Liturgist]

My set is new with only one name written in them, if you want them send me a message and we can talk. I didn't pay a lot so I only want what I paid.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

That’s very generous of you! I don’t have storage space now, but I would love to take you up on that in a few months if you haven’t sold them by then.

God bless you.

 

[JM]

That’s very generous of you! I don’t have storage space now, but I would love to take you up on that in a few months if you haven’t sold them by then.

God bless you.

I'm an stodgy old right-winger who prefers historically approved works, those that have lasted over time. Once I read that Barth moved his mistress into his house I was uninterested in reading him.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm an stodgy old right-winger who prefers historically approved works, those that have lasted over time.

On this we agree entirely. I regard Barth as not Orthodox, but since much of my work involves studying non-orthodox theology so as to be able to differentiate it from Orthodox theology, it would be useful to have, although frankly I hope I can find an electronic edition, because of how much room it takes up, which I would rather have for the set of ancient Orthodox hymnals which I presently have only in electronic form known as the Monthly Menaion.