Still (as with a few days ago) reading Barth's commentary on Philippians (specifically 3.7-9), I've had my furniture tossed around. I don't wholeheartedly yet accept this whole bit, but it is amazing. And it makes those who say "justifying faith is obedient faith" look like school children fussing around on the playground. "The best way… Continue reading The Extreme (Barthian) Home Makeover
Though I had hoped to finish doing a very brief run-down of VanDrunen's new book last week, I'll have to settle for briefly finishing it up today. I'm picking up with chapter eight, where VanDrunen discusses Barth and the Reformed doctrines of natural law and the two kingdoms. Essentially, says VanDrunen, Barth rejected the natural law and two kingdoms doctrines because… Continue reading Natural Law and Two Kingdoms: Conclusion
What does it mean when Paul calls God's people "saints?" (cf. Phil 1.1 - to all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi [NIV]). Barth (the young [1926/7] exegete!), in his commentary on Philippians, said this. "[Saints]...describes the condition in which they find themselves on the ground of a specific mind and attitude towards them… Continue reading “To the Saints” (What is a Saint?)
A few weeks back, a Barth post of mine led to a good discussion in the comments. This post is a sort of answer to that using Gustaf Wingren (20th C. Lutheran theologian) and Cornelius Van Til (20th C. Reformed theologian) to speak about one weakness found in Barth's theology. Basically, both Wingren and Van… Continue reading Barth: Anthropocentric?
Though this book isn't new, 20th Century Theology (Downers Grove, IVP, 1992) by Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson is one of those books that theology students need to read, like it or not. It is basically a run-down of all the major theologians in the 20th century Western world (though a few transitional figures from the… Continue reading 20th Century Theology: The Heavy Hitters