Karl Barth on the Eternal Existence of Jesus Christ (original) (raw)
Related papers
TRINITY, ELECTION, AND ETERNITY IN THE THOUGHT OF KARL BARTH.docx
Christ. Negatively, the reprobate receive only the proper damnation for their sin. 3 They are left in the state of sin with no hope for the gift of quickening grace that is the only means of restored relationship with God. Calvin's understanding did not evolve in a vacuum, however; as his "historical" exegesis shows, Calvin was indebted to the insights of Augustine of Hippo (from whom he claimed an entire volume of proofs could be deduced 4 ) and Thomas Aquinas. 5 Though built on the foundation of a commitment to a robust biblical exposition and with an eye to the Christian theological tradition, Calvin's understanding of election has not gone without criticism. Charges abound in both scholarly and popular literature: his construal of election is overly deterministic; 6 Christ's function as Mediator turns out to be a mere placeholder whose incarnation serves as a passive execution of the divine decree; Calvin does not sufficiently tie election to Christology, etc. Lutheran opponents attributed Calvin's view of election, as well as that of his followers, to a defective view of the Incarnation, itself a product of an over-emphasis on what they dubbed the extra Calvinisticum, a doctrine that came to prominence during 16 th -century sacramental debates, asserting that "the Word of God is not entirely circumscribed by his assumed humanity, but continues to fill and sustain the universe even while he is incarnate in Jesus 3 With the respect to whether one's state can ultimately be known, Richard Muller notes that reprobation is not a precise corollary to the assurance the elect have in Christ. Indeed, the reprobate cannot know they are reprobate. Their knowledge is limited only to their sinful state. See Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Calvin sees no difference between permission and volition in God's decree of reprobation. The reprobate are damned because of their own sinful actions but God also is the determining cause of their actions. This model was to be modified by the post-Reformation scholastics. Cf. Inst., 3.21.6.
‘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
The Humanity of God in Karl Barth’s Christological Interpretations
Roczniki Teologiczne, 2016
The article shows the key aspects of the Christological approach to Karl Barth's teaching about "the humanity of God". The author argues that in the mirror of Jesus Christ's humanity the humanity of God included in Jesus's divine nature is revealed. It is in Jesus Christ that kenosis and gloria, humanum and divinum meet in an amazing way; and in the negotiating space which is constituted by His Person they explain each other, speaking more sonorously with their own voice. Hence the point of departure for a reflection on the problem that is posed here, is looking closely at the formal basis of Barth's theology. Jesus Christ's central place-with respect to the contents, form and method-is considered to be one of its most important attributes. The author of Die Kirchliche Dogmatik starts his argument by discussing Jesus Christ's pre-existence with the help of the doctrine of "the gracious election" that is a modified conception of his earlier Trinitarian theology. It says that God "from the beginning" is directed to man, suggesting a prohuman character of God's being and acting. In the light of Barth's doctrine Jesus Christ, as the second Person of the Trinity, is not only the object of election", but He is also the electing subject. As the One Who Wants to complete the Father's salutary work, he is the justification and guarantee of our salvation. Barth categorically pronounces himself in favor of the Christological paradigm of the Revelation saying that around history and the dialogue, in which God and a man meet and are together-around a mutually made and kept relation-there is the most complete opening and exchange. It happens in the Person, since Jesus Christ is in the only and in the highest degree: a true God's man (Gott des Menschen) and a true Divine Man (Mensch Gottes). The phrase about the "humanity of God"-is Emmanuel, to whom we pass from the Christological centre, taking into consideration the theological and anthropological consequences following this movement.
The Victory of Jesus in Barth's Conception of Eternity
Theology Today , 2018
Karl Barth has developed the Boethian concept of eternity as simultaneity by placing the person of Jesus Christ at the center of God's eternity. Even though it is a momentous achievement, Barth's conception still stands in need of clarification or modification, for otherwise it might impugn the victory of Jesus Christ unwittingly, since it logically entails a problematic notion of the simultaneity of Jesus' past, present, and future. It follows that his past of death is never gone but simultaneously present in the divine eternal now. To avoid this problematic ambivalence, I will suggest that even in God's eternity there must be the indicator of God's now, the flowing "now" from the past to the future. And yet, my suggestion will not depart from the concept of simultaneity in God's omniscience.
The Prophetic Office of Christ According to Karl Barth
Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie, 2017
This article analyzes and evaluates Karl Barth’s account of the prophetic office of Jesus Christ. Barth interprets the prophetic office of Christ as the self-witness of the risen and living Christ in the world and in the church. This interpretation is a striking example of Barth’s Christological concentration. Barth’s interpretations of self-witness, prophecy, the Old Testament, the true words outside the church, and the Holy Spirit raise serious questions. It is argued that Barth’s description of the Spirit as the power of Christ ignores the divine personality and agency of the Spirt beside the divine personality and agency of Christ. We do not only need Barth’s Christological Pneumatology (the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ), but also the Pneumatological Christology suggested by Calvin (Christ is the Christ of the Spirit).
Karl Barth on Nothingness: A Christological-Predestinarian Defiance of Theodicy
2015
This article examines Karl Barth's treatment of the theodicy problem in Church Dogmatics III/3, §50 ('God and nothingness'). This part-volume sets forth Barth's doctrine of providence, and in §50 he takes the theodicy problem head-on. By demonstrating how Barth develops his understanding of sin, evil, and death as " nothingness " (German: das Nichtige, a term to which he gives the definition and delimitation of 'that which is not') on the basis of his Christocentric doctrine of election, this article contends that this term, often misunderstood as a meontological notion, is in fact a Christological-predestinarian notion that engages deeply and yet critically with Reformation and post-Reformation Reformed theology. For Barth, the term " nothingness " is not meant to connote ontological privation, even though there is a limited sense in which nothingness can be described as privatio. Rather, central to the notion of " nothingness " — " that which is not " —is Barth's insistence on God's gracious election in Christ, part and parcel of which is God's absolute non-willing and rejection of the negative element that assails God's covenant-creature. This Christocentric ontology that Barth developed in 1936-1942 lies at the core of his discussion of nothingness, and, in line with the epistemological implications of this ontology, he makes a concerted effort to avoid metaphysical rationalisation or explanation of nothingness. For this reason, he not only defies the theodicy problem with a Christus Victor, " Mozartean " attitude, but also he rejects theodicy projects as altogether unable to avoid natural-theological speculation about God's sovereignty and graciousness in abstract terms. Barth insists that true knowledge of nothingness is possible only in light of Christ's eternal and a priori ('zum Vornherein') triumph over it, as manifested in the event of the birth, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. It is the history (Geschichte) of God's covenantal faithfulness to the creature in Jesus Christ that God manifests Godself to be gracious and sovereign. In other words, humans are not in the place to vindicate God—hence Barth's rejection of theodicy; only God can and does answer the theodicy problem. It remains open to question, of course, whether Barth is always true to his fundamental conviction that nothingness has absolutely nothing to do with God, and to his avowed rejection of rational explanations of nothingness. Whatever the case, Barth's intention in treating sin, evil, and death as " nothingness " is to utter a metaphysical " I don't know " about the dark mystery, and, more importantly, a Christological " I know " about God's sovereign graciousness to the covenant-partner in Jesus Christ, thereby replacing theodicy with the category of witness.
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.