The Humanity of God in Karl Barth’s Christological Interpretations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Karl Barth's Understanding of the Word of God, Anselm and the Human Being
It is generally acknowledged that Barth's theology is a theology of the Word of God. The notion of the Word of God pervades his theological writings as the leading concept. His Church Dogmatics begin with an extended treatment of the doctrine of the Word of God. In the foreword of his Dogmatics in Outline Barth states that "the subject of theology is ... the Word of God."1 That there is a connection with his theological anthropology is less obvious.
Stuart George Hall (éd.) ; "Jesus Christ today. Studies in christology in various contexts. Proceedings of the Académie internationale des sciences religieuses, Oxford 25-29 August 2006 and Princeton 25-30 August 2007"- p. 179-208 (ISBN : 978-3-11-020959-4), 2009
Karl Barth’s understanding of the nature of theology:
In this examination of Barth I have deliberately focussed on his more accessible shorter works, drawing on some of his early as well as his later works. The major themes in Dogmatics are dealt with in these shorter and seemingly more accessible works and enable the reader to get to grips with the core themes of Barth’s work in a more manageable format. The key themes of Barth’s thought that I want to examine are Revelation, Incarnation, Church and Community, and his own understanding of these within the place and function of theology. I want to examine the content of these themes and also place them within Barth’s own context to see how the context informed the theology and vice versa. I then want to examine Barth’s understanding of these themes with reference to their possible applications for the mission of the church in our own context.
A critical evaluation of the concept of the revolution of God in the theology of Karl Barth
1987
Bibliography: pages 163-166.The paradox evident in these quotations from Barth's writings forms the centre of his theology. On the one hand, humanity is incapable of speaking of God. On the other hand, it is imperative for humanity to speak of God. This dilemma is resolved by God's act for humanity in Jesus Christ, giving rise to a human response of faith and obedience. Humanity can speak of God only because God has revealed Godself. Hence, all theology and praxis begins doxologically, in praise for God's initiative of grace. This thesis proposes that Barth's perception of this initiative of God is best expressed in the concept of the revolution of God, which provides a paradigm from which to recover the liberative and humanising intention of his theology. This theology implies human praxis which participates in the divinely instituted process of transforming human reality. In this way Barth simultaneously speaks of God and humanity, without confusing the deity of Go...
Karl Barth on the Eternal Existence of Jesus Christ
Scottish Journal of Theology, 2007
Central to Barth's doctrine of election is the notion that Jesus Christ is the subject of election. This implies that Jesus Christ existed from all eternity. I discuss four possible interpretations of this proposition. I analyse these interpretations both in terms of their internal consistency and in terms of their consistency with Barth's overall proposal. Three of the four interpretations, defended by Emil Brunner, Cornelius Berkouwer, John Colwell and Bruce McCormack, I find wanting. With the fourth interpretation I lay my own cards on the table and argue that part of the problem lies in Barth's formulation itself. The context of Barth's saying that ‘Christ is the subject of election’ suggests that for Barth, Jesus Christ is not so much identical not with a subject, but with an act: the divine reaching out to that what is not God. This act establishes the act and object of election.
Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 2018
The philosophical investigations into universals was entangled with the combination of a certain Christian faith and Ontology, especially in ancient and medieval times. That is, God's creative activity provided us with the ontological presumption which enabled universals to be predicated, be perceived and be thought about. Times then have changed, and "the modern turn" in Philosophy tends to resolve universals into concepts or linguistic phenomenon, which resulted that its certain Christian ontology no longer dominates the discourse on universals. On the contrary to this philosophical tendency, modern theological discussions try to learn the development of philosophical investigations into universals, and to tackle the theological problems provoked by the modern natural science. Especially Karl Barth's use of Universals-theory would obtain the assessment of "revolution in content" in the Church history, which, in previous studies, was yet entangled with the ambiguous word "…in motion…" and with the unclear argument "…understand true human nature from the nature of this one particular man Jesus Christ…" The present article will attempt to clarify this Barth's practical use of Universals-theory by referring to philosophical arguments, then proving Barth's intention and the difficulty of his complicated argument that Jesus Christ was one exemplar and in the same time was also the model, which is inconsistent with the basis of Universals-theory. It resulted that this Barth's attempt will provide us with the possibility today of Universals-theory especially in the field of Religion.
Some Dogmatic Implications of Barth's Understanding of Ebionite and Docetic Christology
International Journal of Systematic Theology, 2000
This article shows how Barth's understanding of Ebionite and Docetic Christology shaped his trinitarian theology and argues that theologians today should learn from Barth in order to avoid the pitfalls of grounding Christ's uniqueness either in experience or in an ideology instead of in Christ himself. The article exhibits how Barth's insights relate to the views of a number of prominent contemporary theologians, illustrating how these theologians, in varying ways, actually reach problematic conclusions precisely to the extent that they do not actually begin their christological reflections with the fact that Jesus is the Son of God simply because he is. One of the most vexatious aspects of contemporary Christology is the fact that so many theologians do not begin where Karl Barth began. Hence they end by trying to build a Christology on a historically or idealistically reconstructed Jesus whose uniqueness is more a creation of the community than a reality whose genuine recognition rests upon a simple acknowledgement of his Lordship. Barth's startingpoint for thinking about the person and work of Jesus Christ was, as is well known, the simple fact of Jesus Christ himself who was the Son of God by virtue of his unique relation to the Father. This may sound like a simple or even simplistic point. But it is in fact loaded, because by this statement Barth was not only trying to say that thinking must be determined by the unique object being considered, but he was also asserting that accurate thinking about revelation (and thus about Jesus Christ) could begin neither with our ideas nor with our experiences. 1 At bottom revelation was not the disclosure of something hidden within history, but the disclosure of God himself who had entered history from outside. Beginning with ideas would lead to what he labeled Docetic Christology, while beginning with experience
‘Jesus is Victor’: Passing the Impasse of Barth on Universalism
Scottish Journal of Theology, 2007
This article examines the question of Karl Barth's stance on universalism. Setting the question within the wealth of contradictory accounts of Barth on this issue, it seeks to find a way through the opposing views represented in the secondary literature. Following a brief examination of the doctrine of election which is the source of the charge of universalism, Barth's response to Berkouwer's The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth will be considered in detail. This passage helps to place Barth's own reaction to the charge of universalism in a broader framework than that of a simple denial or acceptance, and helps to highlight what Barth does and does not reject regarding universalism. It will be argued that it is the replacement of the person of Jesus Christ with a principle, rather than any limitation of the salvific work of God, that Barth rejects in rejecting apokatastasis. Barth's denial of universalism marks a dismissal of the problematic elements associated with the word, not a denial of the ultimate friendliness of Jesus Christ. The radical newness of Barth's own approach to universalism cannot be overemphasized, and marks the means by which one may pass through the impasse of differing accounts of Barth's eschatology. 1