Introducing and Interpreting Karl Barth

[@roberttaylor2607]

Thank You for the content, very informative.

[@georgeluke6382]

Been reading the critique of Barth in the Great Thinkers series, and just wanted to let you know the author disagrees that Christianity and Barthianisn, and Van Til specifically, represent Barth accurately. I’m sure y’all know more about the nuances on that debate more than me, but it felt like a piece of contemporary scholarship worth including! Lot of solid names, and solid interaction with primary resources.

[@rynounworthysaint]

Thanks for the comment, George. You may be interested Dr. Cassidy's newly-published, lengthy review of Dr. Tseng's contribution on Barth to the Great Thinkers. He interacts with the author on your precise point. The review is available on Reformation21.

[@georgeluke6382]

@@rynounworthysaint very helpful, thanks!

[@georgeluke6382]

@@rynounworthysaint thanks again! I skimmed through, and thankful. I suppose the only way to evaluate given these different schools is read Barth, and CVT on Barthianism, and think through some of the best of the secondary literature and classes like the one in the OP.
Thank you again for directing me!

[@metapolitikgedanken612]

Somebody that argues like an eel isn't easy to 'represent accurately'. John and Jesus did however hit the nail, when he called them 'brood of vipers'.

[@WarEagle1957]

Thanks for the wealth of sources sited on today’s video. I’m currently reading “Church Dogmatics: A Selection with Introduction” by Helmut Gollwitzer. I’m only a third of the way through the book, but so far he paints Barth’s theology as Orthodox. Haven’t read Barth before, so his language could be nuanced and misleading. Hope to grab some of the suggested reading to work through.

[@gabesmith9171]

Great stuff! Unrelated but you may be interested in the Feb 2023 Tabletalk from Ligonier on Machen

[@vanttil101]

Very useful! Thanks!

[@JohnCahillChapel]

Starts at 21:44 in, we’ll… add a couple of minutes.. no no… make that 27:40 ! Hmmm …

[@jackuber7358]

It may be just too simplistic to say, but given all the, what appear to me, clearly unorthodox and sub-Biblical teachings of Barth, why he was never called out as at least a false teacher? Maybe in another episode you delve into that. God's blessings, gentlemen.

[@justcody4615]

Because he's actually pretty conservative compared to what else was going on in European Protestantism after WW2. Barth might even be to the theological right of Thielicke, since Barth could at least affirm some sort of inerrancy. I'd call Barth Heterodox since there is no specific heresy he has that puts him outside of the Faith and hopelessly without Christ.
He received a few angry sounding letters from Francis Schaeffer I think and Van Til was very concerned about him, my personal take is that Barth is at the least an improvement over Arminius even if it's an improvement bent out of shape by Kant.