Phil Sumpter makes note of a new blog (via Faith and Theology) in which the author has purposed to read through Barth’s Church Dogmatics in five years at a rate of five pages a day. Phil said, “I, too, hope one day to read through what looks like an utter masterpiece…” with regard to CD, but I’d advise against it on this basis: Everyone I have read (either in books or on blogs) who has read through CD has ended up either more confused or more confusing for doing so. That’s why I have purposed to only read through CD I/1 and find out if Barth can really be labeled a modalist or not. I have the Romans commentary but I’ll probably never get through the whole thing. Imagine all the beneficial reading I’d miss out on if I were to engage in such a hopeless task… μὴ γένοιτο!
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
Well, I’ve read Barth’s CD, and I sure hope I’m not included in that sweeping judgement! (Of course, I’ve also read Thomas’ Summa, so maybe I just have a penchant for reading things that make people go mad without succumbing to insanity.)
Esteban: I’m shocked! 8O You truly are the exception to the rule. BTW, see my comment to Joe with reference to ‘that one’ here.
I am wholly dismayed along with you. I’m currently reading his Contra Errores Graecorum, and boy, does it make my blood boil.
Esteban: I can imagine! I’ve not yet completed his Summa and it’s not hopeful that I ever will!
I’ll save you some time. Barth uses similar language as modalists, but is not (and my Systematics prof agrees) a modalist.
Jeremiah: So say his devotees, but his detractors say something else entirely. I’ll have a look see and make my own determination. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he devolves into modalism even if unintentionally.
I find much more troubling some of his statements about the Bible.
Jeremiah: Oh man, then I’ll probably really hate those!
Dude, you just got quoted (and called ignorant) on ΨΕΥΔΟΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΑ!!!
wow, that is sarcasm in the original sense
Esteban: What?!! Darn blogspot blogs don’t generate pingbacks. I’ll check it out.
Jeremiah: What is? The post Esteban is talkling about or something I said? If it’s something I said then you’re welcome. :)
The pseudotheologia post rends the flesh
Jeremiah: Yeah, I just read it. I don’t know what his problem is, I gave him some press a couple of weeks ago. Oh well…
He’s on your side…
Jeremiah: Yeah, there’s an obvious facetiousness to the post, but c’mon, a little respect.
I’m actually trying to figure out what the purpose of the blog is, besides giving him/her/it a place to demonstrate what an uncharitable dolt they are.
Jeremiah: I had assumed that it was a spoof originally, but then (s)he (?) wrote something and quoted Barth and the quote was in context and actually fit with the babble of the post. I suppose the point was to make fun of Barth, but if not then I’m even more convinced that no one can understand him!
Say what you will, but Jürgen Hauerwas is my hero! For proof, look at his blogroll, which is a veritable Hall of Shame of pseudotheoblogs. ;-)
Esteban: Yeah, I re-read the post. I guess I can let it slide. He’s clearly making a point and using the ever-growing popularity of my name to further it. Kudos to him.