2010 Karl Barth Blog Conference (Just A Heads Up)

The 2010 Karl Barth Blog Conference will commence this Sunday September, 27 2010 with opening remarks from the conference host Travis McMaken. Travis (Der Evangelische Theologe) and David Congdon (The Fire and the Rose) worked hard putting this conference together so make sure to check it out.

Look out for my paper entitled: The Proper Task of Dogmatics and the Nature of Revelation: Karl Barth and Herman Bavinck on the Deus Dixit.

It's going to be a good conference with a lot of good papers. 

Barth on Election and Ephesians 1

I have been reading through CD II and was captivated by a small section in which Barth discusses election and his understanding of the "in him" of Ephesians 1:4. This is one example of Barth's emphasis on participation. Please read Adam Neder's exceptional little book Participation in Christ: An Entry into Karl Barth's Church Dogmaitcs, for a fuller account of this theme in Barth's theology.

"From the very beginning (from eternity itself), there are no other elect together with or apart from Him, but, as Eph. 1:4 tells us, only 'in' Him. 'In Him' does not simply mean with Him, together with Him, in His company. Nor does it mean only through Him, by means of that which He as elected [human] can be and do for them. 'In Him' means in His person, in His will, in His own divine choice, in the basic decision of God which He fulfills over against every [human]. What singles Him out from the rest of the elect, and yet also, and for the first time, unites Him with them, is the fact that as elected [human] He is also the electing God, electing them in His own humanity. In that He (as God) wills Himself (as [human]), He also wills them. And so they are elect 'in Him,' in and with His own election."[1]

[1]Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2: The Doctrine of God, Study Edition. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Translated by G.W. Bromiley (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 124

 

The Death of Clark Pinnock

Here is a link to a great post by Jamie Smith on the passing of Clark Pinnock.

Clark Pinnock, 1937-2010

Pinnock was given a lot of flack over the span of his career, especially from more conservative evangelicals. I was once in a conversation with a doctoral student at ICS who wrote his master's thesis on Pinnock, which gives an appreciation and critique. He spoke of Pinnock's kind response to his thesis and the hospitality of him and his wife when he met them in person. Pinnock was a kind man who wrote engaging and provoking theology, and was willing to take risks that most of us are not. Many people often assume that those who affirm open theism are no longer Christians seeking the will of God. But this is utterly false. Pinnock should be remembered for his willingness to take risks and his service to the Church and the academy.

A sneak peak at my Barth Blog Conference paper

Karl Barth and Herman Bavinck:

The Deus Dixit and the Proper Task of Dogmatics

One of Herman Bavinck’s most profound contributions to theology can be found in his prolegomena to Dogmatics (RD 1) in which, he seeks to bring forth a necessary and fundamental starting point for all further elucidations on the proper task of dogmatics. This starting point as such begins with Bavinck’s affirmation that “God has spoken,” Deus dixit. The significant impact of Bavinck and his exposition of the Deus dixit can be found in his influence on Karl Barth. Barth subsequently took up Bavinck’s use of the Deus dixit, and in the same light as Bavinck, furthered its use by way of his development of a three-fold word of God and commentary on the proper task of dogmatics. Barth, in preparation for his Göttingen lectures, read closely the Gereformeerde Dogmatiek of Herman Bavinck and incorporated Bavinck’s understanding of the Deus dixit into his lectures. The influence of Bavinck and the Deus dixit, did not cease at the completion of the Göttingen lectures, but continued to impact Karl Barth’s theology. It is important to note that although Barth was heavily influenced by Bavinck’s declaration, that “God has spoken,” he continued to develop this theological axiom. Barth was working both with, and beyond Bavinck.  Although Barth’s use of the Deus dixit has been examined in studies by Bruce L. McCormack and John Vissers, it is my intention to go beyond the examination of Barth’s appreciative use of Bavinck and to examine the differences and similarities of Barth and Bavinck’s dogmatic use of the Deus dixit.

Metaphysics and musings about God

In Church Dogmatics II.1 §28, Barth warns against the reduction of the doctrine of God into a form of metaphysical musings about the being of God, which he suggests Melancthon to have done at some length in his Loci of 1521. Barth, here, cautions against simply having a philosophical knowledge of God because it abstracts God from His actions in Christ. It is by God's actions that God is known--He is not bound by them, but they are bound to Him. It is clear for Barth that our quest is not to ask questions about "being," but about God, and "that our subject is God and not being, or being only as the being of God."[1] But, what then is the place of ontology and metaphysical language in Christian theology? Barth himself says, "Yet we must not yield to a revulsion against the idea of being as such..."[2] It seems as though Barth is getting at a post-doctrine of God ontology. That is, once the statement "God is," is addressed, it is then appropriate to engage in a further investigation of "being" as such. But this investigation must always be modified and directed by the statement and presupposition that, "God is."
It is in my own thoughts and studies that I find metaphysical knowledge and language helpful. But it is important that we heed the advice Karl Barth, and resist the temptation to absorb God into another metaphysical category, which leaves discussions of God quite empty. Metaphysical language and musings may be helpful--and often beneficial--though, the theologian must always be reminded that questions of "being" tell us nothing about God, but the statement "God is," tells us about God's being. That God simply is, must be our starting point.

[1]Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1: The Doctrine of God §28, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.W. Bromiley (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 4
[2]Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.1, 4