Jim:

Thanks for the reply.

I have already pasted parts 1-3 into a Word document and await part 4. I will do my read through then.

Bruce

Jeremy,

The way in which Barth understood the analogia entis is a very complex topic. At the beginning of his career he would have lumped all Roman Catholic theology under that banner. He also, interestingly, included all forms of anthropocentric Protestant theology under that general banner as well (such as liberalism). In fact, any theology which does not begin with God’s act of Grace in Jesus Christ and the qualitative difference between eternity and time is a product of an ae ontology.

Bruce, some have said that Van Til’s read of Barth was inept. We at Reformed Forum do not believe that. In fact, what I have labored to show is that there is a great deal of overlap between VT’s read of Barth and that of more recent Barth scholars, such as Bruce McCormack. In fact, I am so thoroughly influence by McCormack’s read of Barth precisely because I am a VTian and I appreciate his work on Barth.

In this 4 part paper I bring Barth in dialogue with several interlocators, including myself, Van Til, and McCormack. I also, in the bio section, discuss VT because it is of some interest to many what their relationship (or lack thereof, as the case may be!) was like.

The CTC 142 podcast on Barth – Van Til started with the statement, “Van Til’s critique of Barth has been called absurd, inept analysis …” Despite this, most of the program was dedicated to Van Til’s interpretation, and only near the end was it quickly interjected “of course there is another view of Barth.”

I see Van Til’s name above, even though this paper is supposedly dedicated to Barth. Before spending more time in studying what you wrote, is this just another rehash of Van Til’s “misguided” (per CTC 142) interpretation, or is this true Barthianism as taught by authentic Barthians?