For anyone unaware (as I was), Bruce McCormack’s recent Kantzer lectures are now available for viewing or listening by clicking the below link (ht: Kenny Chmiel). I just listened to the first one (approx. hour and a half), and it was great! McCormack critiques the doctrine of God that is present, respectively, in Erickson V. Grudem/Ware; and then McCall V. Piper. He does this through various lenses. His alternative to the classic metaphysicalism that is present for both test cases is of course his appropriated form of post-metaphysicalism that he constructively works from through Barth. There is about a 20 minute Q & A session after the first lecture (which I presume will be the case for the following lectures). So his itinerary and subject for the lecture series is the doctrine of God & Revealed Theology. I am very much so a fan of the prolegomenon (theological method) that McCormack operates from (something that is akin to T. F. Torrance’s theological science) than I am of that which he is critiquing as it is expressed in the evangelical theologians he is at issue with in his first lecture. I think of interest, is that McCormack is offering a constructive critique of American Evangelicalism (of which I am a part, and I mean that I am an American Evangelical myself); and also offering his own unique constructive way forward if evangelicalism is to imbibe the Protestant mantra of semper reformanda (always reforming) with sola scriptura. Of note, to me, McCormack admits that if Barth was wrong, then Calvin was right; which I found refreshing π !
Athanasian Reformed
πππππ’π π·ππ πππππ‘ ππ πππ‘ππππ’π. ππ‘π ππ¨π«π π¨π ππ¨π π°π’π₯π₯ π₯ππ¬π ππ¨π«ππ―ππ«.
Hey Bobby did you see that John Webster has 7 lectures on that site that you can listen to, there isn’t any video, but still I feel blessed to get to hear these. Man, it gets a bit testy during the question and answer session in some of the McCormack lectures. D.A. Carson and McCormack go back and forth (lecture 4) a bit on John 1:14 and identity issues – awesome!
Hey Kenny, yeah, I listened to most of those in the past (the Webster ones). Thanks for pointing me to this series by McCormack. I’m going to have to go and watch that interchange between Carson and McCormack. Merry Christmas!!
Bobby: Maybe the truth is somewhere between Barth and Calvin? Let’s hope so, since both of us I have spent so much time on these two men of God. π
Btw, a Blessed Christmas to you and all yours!
I’ve listened to six of the seven lectures (no small feat!). I really don’t know what to think. At times I was cheering McCormack on, and at other times I was at a loss. I don’t really buy the significance of his “ontology without metaphysics,” so that greatly decreases my sympathy for his emphases (e.g., the logos asarkos is determined by the incarnation…because he’s so afraid about being “metaphysical”…blah, blah). So, not surprisingly, I’m more in line with Webster’s desire to ground dogmatics in a metaphysics of God’s perfection. After listening to McCormack, I actually went back and re-listened to the first three of Webster’s Kantzer lectures…so refreshing and exciting!
Yeah we cannot violate basic philosophy or even epistemology, but ontology does move us into great mystery! And dogmatics should also be grounded in the Text.
Fr Robert @ your comment #3. That’s where Torrance comes in, in between π !
@Kevin,
That is no small feat π , and I am in agreement with you ultimately. That’s why I go with TFT and Webster and the Tradition in these kinds of modified ways. I appreciate McCormack, but I ultimately go Webster TFT. But, like you, I also find myself cheering for McCormack at points. Who is the moderator, the guy who opens up the Q & A times (his name is “Tom”)? He seems to bother McCormack at points (esp. in lecture 4).
Never mind, that’s Tom McCall in the flesh. He’s an energetic guy.
Personal opinion: McCormack was too easily annoyed and could use some cheerfulness in his tone. His ideas are stimulating, but I’m definitely not a fan of his style.
@Kevin,
My wife even noticed McCormack’s posture, and she only watched briefly; some of the Q & A. I think most if not all of his “style” and tone might be attributable to the fact that it didn’t seem as if he had one sympathetic supporter in the crowd (at least those who were verbal in the Q & A). I would think that this could make anybody a bit on edge.
Well, Vanhoozer is sympathetic, and Vanhoozer has done more than anyone to bring Barth into constructive dialogue with American evangelicalism (in two of its leading intellectual centers in Chicago: Wheaton and Trinity). So, I’m not sure that the crowd wasn’t sympathetic. This isn’t Westminster Philly. Even Tom McCall’s questions are perfectly reasonable and respectful, certainly not agitating (despite McCormack’s reactions, which get worse by the fourth lecture). They weren’t the sort of question that I would ask, but a good lecturer is able to take a slightly misdirected question and angle it in a better and more fruitful direction. McCormack scarcely does any of that.
@Kevin,
Maybe the language of sympathetic wasn’t the right language; maybe I should have said that there weren’t many, or any, who seemed to agree with McCormack (even Vanhoozer), and McCormack’s “Barth.”
But I see what you’re saying, now, about McCormack’s style in the lecture. I agree, there could’ve been more of a constructive tone and framing of things.