tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post5080128926607122791..comments2024-03-09T04:00:18.309-06:00Comments on Know Thyself: Barth I.1 §8.3-§9.2Keith Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-37008548004644357822011-04-08T19:02:17.443-05:002011-04-08T19:02:17.443-05:00Barth Reader:
INTJ is one of sixteen personality...Barth Reader: <br /><br />INTJ is one of sixteen personality types in the myers-briggs personality test. INTJ stands for introverted, intuitive, thinking, judging. You can find free tests online and they are enlightening. <br /><br />I don't even think that Barth would say that after you accept the doctrine of the trinity through revelation then you can find real vestiges of the trinity in nature. He is sympathetic with the attempt to try and understand the trinity through nature, but ultimately thinks that it is a dangerous game. Either these are "real" vestiges of the trinity which Barth rejects, or they are merely grasping at understanding. <br /><br />I agree that the doctrine of the trinity is of utmost importance for Barth's dogmatics, yet I am just not particularly taken with it, it doesn't interest me beyond saying that God is three in one, affirming that, and leaving it a mystery because probing the mystery yields no tangible results in my mind. Barth can essentially say no more after his lengthy discussion than he could say before, which is why I could do with out the rehearsal. I am not saying that this discussion is unnecessary for Barth's program, merely that it doesn't interest me and I find little that helps me to think about God in it.Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-71991772145757657632011-04-07T17:09:11.269-05:002011-04-07T17:09:11.269-05:00Thanks for your ideas on the latest reading.
Enli...Thanks for your ideas on the latest reading. <br />Enlighten me. What is an INTJ? Two thoughts on your summary.<br />1. As far as Barth's treatment of vestigium trinitatis, don't you think the danger lies in his recurring theme that you must accept the revelation first, then you can think of examples in nature. The danger would be trying to think the other way around and derive the revelation of the trinity. <br />2. I believe that Barth only appears to be thinking for thinking's sake. In my opinion, the real drive behind his detailed and prolonged consideration lies in the importance of the Trinity to his dogmatics. It starts with it and faces it at every turn, so he had to exhaust the subject (and the readers?) to be able to go on.Barth Readernoreply@blogger.com