Adam Neder on the Humanness of Calvin, Part 3

Post 3 by Dr. Adam Neder over at DET, is in my opinion, the most telling in regards to the unveiling of Calvin's humanness. Neder focuses on the examination of Calvin's relationships to both his wife and his friends; he also gives an excerpt from a letter that Calvin wrote to the father of one of Calvin's tenants who had died - it is quite moving.  All this to say, this post like the last two is well worth your time.

Adam Neder on the Humanness of Calvin, Part 2

Over at Der Evangelische Theologe, Travis has posted a lecture series given by Dr. Adam Neder. Adam is professor of theology at Whitworth University in Spokane, WA. Adam was a teacher of mine and a good friend. His lecture brings to light some of the reasons why much of the Church has refused to read Calvin, and why they are missing out. I highly recommend reading these first two posts and the ones to come--they are quite insightful.

Update

The purpose of this post is to let readers of theo-blogology know my future plans for school, life, and blogging. After winter quarter I will officially be done with my degree from Fuller. It has been a good, but difficult road for both my wife and I, as well as our bank account. That being said, instead of applying to PhD programs this fall, Megan and I have decided to wait until next fall to apply. I am quite burned out from being on the quarter system and going to grad school for two years year around, and Megan has had a very hard time living in the Los Angeles area and finding work. So, we are going to move back up to Spokane, WA, where she is from and we both went to schoool, (I am going to finish my last quarter from a distance and also take one of my courses at Gonzaga University), and work for the next year or so until I, hopefully, am accepted to a PhD program.

We really need a nice break and some time to relax. We also need time to focus on our marriage. When we first moved to Fuller we had only been married for a week - it was a major transition. We simply need time to focus on each other. I think this time will be extremely beneficial for each of us individually and for our marriage, and it will prepare us well for moving across the country and starting a PhD program.

During this time, I will work, study for the GRE, and study for my own general enjoyment - I might also try to publish a paper or present at a conference. I have a great relationship with many of the professors at Whitworth University, so it should be an excellent theological community to be around. But because I will not be in a formal academic setting, I plan to bring much of my thoughts to the blogosphere. My plan is to start blogging on a regular basis starting mid-January. I hope everyone has an excellent Christmas and I look forward to many fruitful discussions.

KBBC: Week 3, Day 4, Barth and Taubes

Ben Myer's fascinating essay on Barth and Taubes followed by a response from Derek Alan Woodard-Lehman.

This is a really excellent essay. Ben sketches Taubes interaction with Barth, and in particular, Barth's interpretation of Romans 13. The essay seeks not only to address some differences and similarities in their interpretation of the text, but more importantly, the apocalyptic method being used to do so.

This essay is particularly fascinating to me because prior to reading it I knew next to nothing about Jacob Taubes. Ben also does a find job of interpreting Barth and bringing to light the apocalyptic nature of his exegesis of Romans 13. This one is a must read.

KBBC: Week 3, Day 3, Barth and Hart

The third post of week three of the 2010 KBBC is up. Keith Starkenburg has written an interesting essay on the aesthetics of Karl Barth and David Bentley Hart followed by an appreciative yet critical response by Han-luen Kantzer Komline.

Starkenburg's main thesis is that Barth's doctrine of Glory, which can be found in CD II.1, achieves the same purpose that Hart does in the Beauty of the Infinite without falling into an affirmation of the analogia entis. Thus, Hart's criticism of Barth, which is quite incomplete, is misleading for it doesn't fully engage or deal with Barth's use of analogical models as they present themselves in the Church Dogmatics.

Komline's response to Starkenburg is quite good. He appreciates the aim and tenor or Starkenburg's essay, but questions the method employed. He begs the question of whether or not multiple roads to the same theological end, which make room for multiple theological approaches to the same theological question, misrepresent and detract from the particularity of each individual theologian? But, ultimately Starkenburg's essay is profitable for it seeks to find similarity amongst the dissimilarity of two theologians.

Go read this essay and response - it is well worth your time!