Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, IV, 3: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 3

1962 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-203
Author(s):  
G. W. Bromiley

There is good hope that the present year will see the appearance of the English translation of IV, 3 of the Church Dogmatics, and with it the conclusion of the doctrinal treatment of the atonement1 and the publication of all the Dogmatik thus far available. Necessarily divided into two halves because of its great length, this third part is devoted to the prophetic work of Jesus Christ in reconciliation. It thus represents an original attempt on the part of the author to work out in detail a theme which has often been suggested in earlier theology, but which has never been given the treatment accorded to the priestly work on the one side or the kingly work on the other.

1957 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-85
Author(s):  
G. W. Bromiley

IN the latest part-volume of the Church Dogmatics published in the autumn of 1955, Karl Barth has given us his second comprehensive survey of the doctrine of reconciliation. For the setting of this treatment within the whole, readers are referred to the synopsis of the first part-volume in a previous issue (Volume 8, Number 2, June 1955), or better still, to the English translation which is now available (cf. especially § 58, 4). Within this whole, the present part-volume deals with the common material under the general title of ‘Jesus Christ, the Servant as Lord’, and therefore from the standpoint of the kingly work of Christ. The volume consists of one long chapter (953 pages) within the Dogmatics, and is divided into five main sections. It is to be noted, incidentally, that in the rendering of Versöhnung in the main title of Volume IV the word ‘reconciliation’ has now been preferred to ‘atonement’, although the latter is often used where it agrees with the context.


Exchange ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-155
Author(s):  
Susanne Hennecke

AbstractThis contribution deals with the thinking of the Buddhist philosopher and Christian theologian Katsumi Takizawa (1909-1984) on incarnation. Firstly, it gives a short biographical and theological introduction to Takizawa, who was influenced not only by the "father" of the so-called dialectical theology, Karl Barth, but also by one of the famous figures of the Kyoto-school, the philosopher Kitaro Nishida.This contribution concentrates, secondly, on Takizawa's the-anthropological re-interpretation of the incarnation. It is argued that for Takizawa incarnation has to be seen as an awakening of the historical Jesus (or other historical phenomena) to what he calls the original fact: the eternal relationship between God and man.Thirdly, this contribution discusses the the-anthropological thinking of Takizawa about incarnation in five short points. Apart from the positive challenges of Takizawa's thinking especially for the theology of Karl Barth, it marks clearly the most thrilling point between Takizawa's thinking on the one side and that of scholars in Barthian theology on the other side. The open question that comes up is if incarnation really can be thought without a historical mediation or mediator, as Takizawa seems to claim.


1978 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-290
Author(s):  
N. H. G. Robinson

In his book on Karl Barth Professor T. F. Torrance spoke at one point of ‘the great watershed of modern theology’. ‘There are,’ he wrote,1‘two basic issues here. On the one hand, it is the very substance of the Christian faith that is at stake, and on the other hand, it is the fundamental nature of scientific method, in its critical and methodological renunciation of prior understanding, that is at stake. This is the great watershed of modern theology: either we take the one way or the other – there is no third alter native… one must go either in the direction taken by Barth or in the direction taken by Bultmann.’


1997 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kobus Labuschagne

On the existence of God and on nothingness The views of Karl Barth and the 'Heilsgeschichte'-tradition on the one hand, and those of Rudolf Bultmann and the 'Formkritik'-tradition on the other hand, do not differ so much on the method of objective historical research. The real differences start to appear on the hermeneutical front, where facts and events referred to in the Scriptures are evaluated and explained. The 'Heilsgeschichte' -tradition is consistent in maintaining an objective point of departure, whilst Bultmann and the 'Form-kritik'-tradition, influenced by existentialist philosophy, reveals a subjective approach. For Bultmann the kerygma cannot be verified historically but only subjectively or existentially. For Barth the kerygma cannot be separated from its true basis of historical events, in and through the person of Jesus Christ. These two different approaches have enormous con-sequences for the question of the existence of God.


Author(s):  
T. V. M. Rao

Bauxite is of twofold interest due firstly to its economic importance, and secondly to the scope it affords for scientific investigation. When these two reasons are taken into consideration, one can easily account for the enormous and rapid accumulation of literature concerning this subject. Any attempt to give a detailed account of the literature will only mean unnecessary repetition of what has been already dealt with at great length by several writers, of whom Anderson and Fox may be specially mentioned. The relation between bauxite and laterite is so intimate that a detailed study of the one is impossible without any reference to the other, and as such the description of and frequent reference to the latter should not be considered as any digression from the subject.


Author(s):  
Randall C. Zachman

Karl Barth seeks to restore the Gospel to the centre of Protestant theology by orienting dogmatic theology to the witness of the prophetic and apostolic authors of Scripture and to the theology of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. Barth especially endorses Luther’s claim that the proclamation of the living and free Word of God in Jesus Christ lies at the heart of the commission laid on the church, and that the task of theology is to test the truth of that proclamation. However, Barth becomes increasingly critical of Luther and Calvin when they distinguish God revealed in Jesus Christ from God in Godself and when they distinguish a Word of God in Scripture—be it a Word of the Creator or the Word as Law—that is distinct from the one Word of God, Jesus Christ. Barth also disagrees with Luther and Calvin regarding the sacraments, insisting at the end of his career that Jesus Christ is the one and only sacrament of God.


1962 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-83
Author(s):  
Daniel L. Deegan

In this third part of volume III of his Dogmatics Barth sets forth the doctrine of divine providence as the objective and universal rule of God which establishes and encompasses but does not absorb the existence of the person or community which becomes the object of His preservation. Barth's steadfast aim has been to produce a theology dominated by its object, Jesus Christ. This part of the Dogmatics is no exception, for here he argues that the order of being and the order of knowledge start with the event of God's action in Christ. Hence he does not speak of a natural theology with an independent cosmological interest in the work of divine preservation, for he insists that Scripture is differently orientated. It does not witness simply to the highest being as first cause; it witnesses primarily to the Lord of history, the God of the Covenant. This means that the doctrine of providence does not become a Weltanschauung. What Barth says concerning this problem in C.D.III.3 should be read in conjunction with C.D.III.2, pp. 3ff. Because he affirms that the central concern of theology is the relation of God and man established in Jesus Christ he regards cosmology as a peripheral concern arid draws the line against attempts to integrate scientific views and theological interpretation into a comprehensive Weltanschauung. Yet he readily admits that the natural sciences which know their limits have their appropriate place in elucidating the nature of man against the background of creation.


2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-164
Author(s):  
Georg Plasger

Abstract The German Reformed tradition between 1900 and 1930 has received little interest. Much more attention has been given to the Reformed churches during the National Socialist era and on acknowledging the massive influence of Karl Barth. The article gives an overview of the minority denomination of the Reformed confession in Germany. On the one hand we see that the Reformierte Bund, founded in 1884, breaks up during the Calvin jubilee of 1909. On the other hand, the crisis after World War I brought further difficulties. In the nineteen-twenties, a discussion grew about the function of the Reformed Confessions—are they to be kept intact and normative (so the Young Reformed line) or should they function to sift and sort out what is needed in each era and location (so Karl Barth)?


2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orrey McFarland

AbstractAlthough many Barth scholars have begun to argue for the necessity of evaluating Barth's theology as an interpretation of scripture, so far these efforts have focused more on hermeneutical questions and less on the specifics of Barth's exegesis, the specific ways his conclusions derive from that exegesis, and the interplay between his exegetical work and his theology. Accordingly, this article seeks to contribute to Barth studies by tracing the development of Barth's christology through his exegesis of Romans 5:12–21 in the first edition of the Romans commentary and Barth's later essay Christ and Adam – specifically how he understands the function of Christ's particularity in relation to his universal soteriological significance. These works have been selected not only because they give extended treatments of the text but also because there is a wide timespan between them. Furthermore, in contrast to the second edition of Romans and the Church Dogmatics, these texts remain relatively untapped, and will consequently provide a unique entry-point into Barth's exegetical work. By looking at Barth's theological development through his exegesis of Paul's text, we have a benchmark by which both to trace Barth's development and to critique it: does Barth do justice to both the particular and universal aspects of the christology of Romans 5:12–21? In this way, I intend to take seriously Barth's recurring assertion that his project succeeded or failed by how well it functioned as biblical interpretation. It will be demonstrated that the early Barth was unable to allow Christ's particularity to have much of a soteriological function in his interpretation of Romans 5:12–21, and was thus compelled to downplay the particularity of Christ which is emphasised in the text and instead emphasise his universality as the only aspect of soteriological value. By contrast, the later Barth grounded Christ's universality precisely in his particularity; that is, the Christ-event only had universal soteriological consequence because it was the action of a particular, historical Jesus. Yet, despite any problems we might find with Barth's interpretations, both works display Barth as an interpreter seeking to grapple with the nuances of scripture and with one of the central issues of the biblical text, and of soteriology in general: the relation of the one to the many.


2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Delgado ◽  
David Fancy

The work of the French playwright Bernard-Marie Koltès, although phenomenally successful in continental Europe, has been staged less frequently in Anglo-American theatres; and a major feature on his work in NTQ49 in February 1997, and the publication by Methuen later in the same year of a collection of three of his plays in English translation, brought him only belated recognition in print. In this paper, first presented at a recent gathering in France to mark the tenth anniversary of Koltès's death, Maria Delgado and David Fancy trace the trajectory of a number of his plays through the space of translation, including Roberto Zucco, Dans la solitude des champs de coton (In the Solitude of the Cottonfields), Quai Ouest (Quay West), and Combat de nègre et de chiens (Black Battles with Dogs). Koltès asserted in 1986 that ‘I have always somewhat disliked the theatre because theatre is the opposite of life; but I always come back to it and love it because it is the one place where you can say: this is not life’; and the poetic specificity of his work has posed significant challenges for an Anglo-American theatre culture imbued with actors' identification with character. Relying on testimonials from a variety of directors, translators, and actors, as well as evidence from productions in the UK, Ireland, and the US, the authors, who are both Koltès translators, trace the challenges that have faced English-speaking artists wishing to stage this demanding writer. Maria Delgado is Senior Lecturer in Drama at Queen Mary, University of London, and David Fancy is a freelance director based in Canada who is currently completing a PhD on Koltès's work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document