Theological Aesthetics?

[Hamalas]

I've just come across Hans Urs von Balthasar's name. Can anyone comment on how valuable/successful/helpful his work on theological aesthetics is?

 

[Hamalas]

 

[jwright82]

It has value for Catholics. He was a very conservative catholic. The value might be in understanding one of the most important catholic thinkers of the last century.

 

[Hamalas]

So little or nothing that would translate into a Reformed context then?

 

[jwright82]

I would say no. His book on Karl Barth might be more useful because we deal with him more. But even Barth isn't Reformed. The best place for Reformed theology is Reformed theology. But it can't hurt to know what different people are thinking.

 

[RamistThomist]

It has value for Catholics. He was a very conservative catholic. The value might be in understanding one of the most important catholic thinkers of the last century.

I got the impression that he was more mainline. He believed in universalism and practiced Tarot mysticism. He is in part responsible for Rome's liturgical holocaust post-Vatican II.

His book on Barth is great (I might reread it in the next few weeks). He is unable to fully critique Barth (the only real interesting critique of Barth is pinning him down as a neo-Origenist on history) because Balthasar himself is an Origenist.

The aesthetics works should be interesting in showing how theologians wrestled with Platonic influences, for better or worse.

 

[RamistThomist]

So little or nothing that would translate into a Reformed context then?

James K. A. Smith and Laura Smit deal with HuvB in soem detail.

https://www.calvin.edu/admin/provost/faith/documents/aesthetics_biblio.pdf

Rev. Dr. Laura Smit | Professor of Theology, Calvin College

 

[Philip]

I would say no. His book on Karl Barth might be more useful because we deal with him more. But even Barth isn't Reformed.

Just because someone isn't reformed doesn't mean they aren't helpful at times. Barth has helped me to understand why trinitarian theology matters, for example. Similarly, for all our disagreements with von Balthasar, his work is the standard on theological aesthetics. Why don't reformed theologians write on aesthetics?

 

[jwright82]

It has value for Catholics. He was a very conservative catholic. The value might be in understanding one of the most important catholic thinkers of the last century.

I got the impression that he was more mainline. He believed in universalism and practiced Tarot mysticism. He is in part responsible for Rome's liturgical holocaust post-Vatican II.

His book on Barth is great (I might reread it in the next few weeks). He is unable to fully critique Barth (the only real interesting critique of Barth is pinning him down as a neo-Origenist on history) because Balthasar himself is an Origenist.

The aesthetics works should be interesting in showing how theologians wrestled with Platonic influences, for better or worse.

Yes and no. He is more liberal than the last pope. But more conservative than rahner and kung. There is a lot of mysticism in Catholicism.

 

[jwright82]

I would say no. His book on Karl Barth might be more useful because we deal with him more. But even Barth isn't Reformed.

Just because someone isn't reformed doesn't mean they aren't helpful at times. Barth has helped me to understand why trinitarian theology matters, for example. Similarly, for all our disagreements with von Balthasar, his work is the standard on theological aesthetics. Why don't reformed theologians write on aesthetics?

I agree. Btw it's nice to talk to again been off the web for a while. Nice to be back. Your right about them but the best place for reformed theology is reformed theology. I have benefited from studying those guys.

 

[jwright82]

It has value for Catholics. He was a very conservative catholic. The value might be in understanding one of the most important catholic thinkers of the last century.

I got the impression that he was more mainline. He believed in universalism and practiced Tarot mysticism. He is in part responsible for Rome's liturgical holocaust post-Vatican II.

His book on Barth is great (I might reread it in the next few weeks). He is unable to fully critique Barth (the only real interesting critique of Barth is pinning him down as a neo-Origenist on history) because Balthasar himself is an Origenist.

The aesthetics works should be interesting in showing how theologians wrestled with Platonic influences, for better or worse.

His book has been challenged by some modern Barth scholars.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would say no. His book on Karl Barth might be more useful because we deal with him more. But even Barth isn't Reformed.

Just because someone isn't reformed doesn't mean they aren't helpful at times. Barth has helped me to understand why trinitarian theology matters, for example. Similarly, for all our disagreements with von Balthasar, his work is the standard on theological aesthetics. Why don't reformed theologians write on aesthetics?

I agree. I am reading Church Dogmatics II.1 at the moment. Barth is far more steeped in the Protestant Scholastics per the doctrine of God than current pop-Reformed will ever be. Sure, he makes controversial moves but at least he redirects the thinking back to the doctrine of God.

HuvB's work on Maximus is brilliant and dizzying in its profundity.

 

[jwright82]

I would say no. His book on Karl Barth might be more useful because we deal with him more. But even Barth isn't Reformed.

Just because someone isn't reformed doesn't mean they aren't helpful at times. Barth has helped me to understand why trinitarian theology matters, for example. Similarly, for all our disagreements with von Balthasar, his work is the standard on theological aesthetics. Why don't reformed theologians write on aesthetics?

I agree. I am reading Church Dogmatics II.1 at the moment. Barth is far more steeped in the Protestant Scholastics per the doctrine of God than current pop-Reformed will ever be. Sure, he makes controversial moves but at least he redirects the thinking back to the doctrine of God.

HuvB's work on Maximus is brilliant and dizzying in its profundity.

Yes but his knowledge of post-reformation thinkers was flawed. There are far better thinkers in our tradition for that. Richard muller, R Scott Clark, and Michael Horton to name three. They are not alone in this area. HuvB has written much some good some bad. I have always been interested in both of these guys but I also keep them at arms length. I make sure I balance reformed theology with other theologians. I study Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. and benefited from them all. I also am concerned about pop-Reformed people but they us avenues to welcome these people into the full Reformed faith.


HuvB has very good stuff on the patristics, I have a couple of them. His little book on Henri De Lubac is good too. I do like how he integrated all of life into his thinking. This echoes many in our tradition as well. Our theology is not just about the head but about the heart and all of life. It's the particular form of life that I disagree with. I'm Reformed he is Catholic, there is massive disagreement on a fundamental level between us. So read him and Barth all you want, i do, but remember to take them with a grain of salt.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would say no. His book on Karl Barth might be more useful because we deal with him more. But even Barth isn't Reformed.

Just because someone isn't reformed doesn't mean they aren't helpful at times. Barth has helped me to understand why trinitarian theology matters, for example. Similarly, for all our disagreements with von Balthasar, his work is the standard on theological aesthetics. Why don't reformed theologians write on aesthetics?

I agree. I am reading Church Dogmatics II.1 at the moment. Barth is far more steeped in the Protestant Scholastics per the doctrine of God than current pop-Reformed will ever be. Sure, he makes controversial moves but at least he redirects the thinking back to the doctrine of God.

HuvB's work on Maximus is brilliant and dizzying in its profundity.

Yes but his knowledge of post-reformation thinkers was flawed. There are far better thinkers in our tradition for that. Richard muller, R Scott Clark, and Michael Horton to name three. They are not alone in this area. HuvB has written much some good some bad. I have always been interested in both of these guys but I also keep them at arms length. I make sure I balance reformed theology with other theologians. I study Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. and benefited from them all. I also am concerned about pop-Reformed people but they us avenues to welcome these people into the full Reformed faith.


HuvB has very good stuff on the patristics, I have a couple of them. His little book on Henri De Lubac is good too. I do like how he integrated all of life into his thinking. This echoes many in our tradition as well. Our theology is not just about the head but about the heart and all of life. It's the particular form of life that I disagree with. I'm Reformed he is Catholic, there is massive disagreement on a fundamental level between us. So read him and Barth all you want, i do, but remember to take them with a grain of salt.

To whom does the "his" refer in your first paragraph, Barth or HuvB? Never said HuvB was a decent Reformational thinker. In fact, I don't think he ever interacted with Reformational sources. Assuming, on the other hand, you are referring to Barth: I've read Muller's critique and agree with him. Still, Barth knew and read more of the scholastics than any pop-Reformed superstar today.

Not trying to boast, but I've read probably 5,000 double-columned, 8-font pages of the church fathers, plus all the leading monographs on them, and about 1,200 pages of Barth. I speak as a fool. My point is that I am aware of the issues around these fellows.

 

[jwright82]

I certainly did not mean to insult in anyway, if I did I apologize. I was trying to express my own experiences with all this. Yes his refers to Barth. Barth got most of his Reformed stuff from Henreich Heppe who, from what I understand, wasn't the best at getting the Reformed tradition right at some times. I could be wrong though because I never read Heppe myself.

 

[Philip]

Your right about them but the best place for reformed theology is reformed theology.

I'm finding more and more that being catholic (small c) in one's reading is the best way to go on this. When I read, say, John Owen I find that he is drawing almost exclusively on patristic sources. The sources of reformed theology are not always in reformed theology.

You are correct that Balthasar's reading of Barth has been contested recently (notably by McCormack) but it does come with Barth's own stamp of approval.

My comment on Barth is that his major points of controversy come in volumes I and IV of the Dogmatics. In I he is wrong by not being consistent enough with his understanding of Trinitarian revelation (if he were, he would be an inerrantist). In IV he is wrong by being too consistent in following one dimension (and only one dimension) of atonement to its logical conclusion, but stopping before he reaches the end. And thus he became the only theologian who has ever avoided being a universalist only by being an Amyraldian. But that may be another thread enirely.

James, it is also good to hear from you.

 

[RamistThomist]

I certainly did not mean to insult in anyway, if I did I apologize. I was trying to express my own experiences with all this. Yes his refers to Barth. Barth got most of his Reformed stuff from Henreich Heppe who, from what I understand, wasn't the best at getting the Reformed tradition right at some times. I could be wrong though because I never read Heppe myself.

It's cool, brother. I agree with your statement on Barth's reading of Reformed sources. Barth is in much better water when he takes apart Rome's analogia entis and Liberal Protestantism