Sin and Evil

Author(s):  
Günter Thomas

This chapter reconstructs the context and argument of Karl Barth’s innovative account of human sin and evil. For a proper understanding of the shifts in Barth’s treatment of these core themes, some ‘default positions’ are briefly sketched. The chapter next describes the implications that attend a transference of the doctrine of sin from anthropology to Christology. This shift is not only epistemic, changing the basis on which sin is recognized and understood. It is also a significant conceptual move, with sin described as a specific posture towards the grace of God, manifest in Christ. The chapter also shows how Karl Barth resists the temptation to reduce the existence of evil to a manageable deficiency of creation, while avoiding any dramatization of the experience of evil. Barth construes evil (nothingness, das Nichtige) in light of God’s creation as an election, with nothingness being that which is rejected in the divine act of creation. Rejecting a personification of evil (i.e., the devil), Barth nonetheless emphasizes the agency of evil as that against which the sovereign God battles.

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-461
Author(s):  
Carl F. Starkloff

Many feel Karl Barth has had his day, Father Starkloff disagrees. He feels a careful study of Barth's theory of religion, within the context of the search for “cultural sensitivity,” can be very rewarding. For it is Barth who reminds us that the central driving force of man's religious life is self-affirmation and self-insurance. Although a solid grasp of the phenomenology of religion is “essential to the training of all missionaries in order to overcome ‘adversaries' and for its positive input into the spiritual life,” the basic issue remains unchanged — the essence of God's unique and once-for-all disclosure and giving of himself to man in Christ.


2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Cortez
Keyword(s):  

Karl Barth's interpreters often characterize him as a ‘christocentric’ theologian. This term, however, is subject to a variety of interpretations, ranging from the totalitarian and isolationist critiques of the ‘christomonist’ objection to the indeterminate and decentred approaches offered by various postmodern readings. The disparity between these two approaches suggests a level of ambiguity in the term that hinders its usefulness unless carefully qualified. Indeed, ‘centric’ terminology itself remains rather ambiguous until the substantive formal and material considerations that lie behind any given form of centricity are addressed. This article proposes to alleviate the ambiguity that has thus clouded the use of ‘christocentric’ as a description of Barth's theology by offering five formal and material qualifications; Barth's christocentricity must be understood in terms of (1) a veiling and unveiling of knowledge in Christ, (2) a methodological orientation, (3) a particular christology, (4) a trinitarian focus and (5) an affirmation of creaturely reality. Using these criteria, the article also argues that both the christomonistic and postmodern interpretations break down at certain points because they fail to appreciate fully these qualifications and thus the particular nature of Barth's christocentrism.


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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-298
Author(s):  
Paul Dafydd Jones

AbstractThis article has three goals: (1) to provide a careful analysis of Barth's treatment of divine patience in Church Dogmatics II/1; (2) to show how Barth's thinking about divine patience helps to illumine his account of human being and human activity in later portions of the Church Dogmatics; and (3) to offer a series of constructive suggestions which connect Barth's theology with liberationist visions of human existence.With respect to Church Dogmatics II/1, I argue that Barth breaks with a number of earlier thinkers and focuses attention on God's exercise of patience, treating it as a key dimension of God's creative and providential work. This exercise of patience means, specifically, that God accords creatures their own integrity and a capacity for free action, tempers God's punishment of sin and, in Christ, fulfils but does not temporally close the covenant. My analysis of divine patience in II/1 then serves as an interpretative key for reading later volumes of the Dogmatics. It sets in vivid relief Barth's belief that Christ's fulfilment of the covenant, achieved through Christ's life, suffering, death and resurrection, is the condition of possibility for humans being able to act with genuine integrity and consequence in the created realm. I propose, too, that Barth develops his thinking about patience by emphasising the ‘pressure’ of the patient God's empowering command – a command which is a constant summons, directed towards each and every human being, to live freely into God's future through acts of gratitude, obedience and responsibility, and to play some part in bringing creation to its glorious end. Finally, I explore the convergence between certain aspects of the Church Dogmatics and anti-essentialist construals of the self in contemporary theology. I aim to identify points of connection between Barth and thinkers like Marcella Althaus-Reid, and I voice support for a style of scholarship which elides the distinction between ‘systematic’ and ‘liberationist’ modes of inquiry.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Yanjumseby Yeverson Manafe

Kedatangan Kristus yang kedua kali merupakan penggenapan janji Allah kepada manusia, setelah Kristus mati dan naik ke surga dan firman Tuhan menyaksikan bahwa Ia akan datang kembali ke dunia pada suatu hari kelak. Kedatangan Kristus yang kedua kali berbeda dengan kedatangan-Nya yang pertama dimana telah dinubuatkan oleh nabi baik tempat dan dari keturunan siapa. Kedatangan-Nya yang kedua kali bukan untuk membawa damai melainkan untuk menghakimi dan mengangkat orang-orang percaya, maka setiap orang percaya dituntut hidup berjaga-jaga dan terus menantikan kedatangan itu dengan iman dan pengharapan bahwa Yesus tidak pernah mengingkari janji kedatangan-Nya dan janji itu tidak ditunda sampai genap waktunya. Kedatangan Kristus yang kedua kali (Parousia) merupakan hal yang dinanti-nantikan oleh setiap orang, namun hal ini tidak seorangpun yang dapat mengetahuinya. Sebab Yesus sendiri yang mengklaim tentang hal itu, kedatangan-Nya seperti pencuri pada malam hari yang artinya bahwa tidak seorangpun yang dapat mengetahuinya selain Dia sendiri. Rasul Paulus memberikan pengajaran tentang parousia, bahwa kedatangan-Nya kembali merupakan hal yang pasti, kendatipun waktuNya tidak ada seorangpun yang tahu. Namun setiap orang percaya harus selalu waspada dan siap sedia setiap saat menyambut kedatanganNya. Tuhan Yesus akan datang kembali untuk membangkitkan orang yang mati dalam kristus, kemudian menghancurkan iblis. Hal ini merupakan berita yang penuh sukacita, terlebih lagi karena Ia akan membawa setiap orang yang percaya padaNya ke surga, yaitu tempat mereka yang sebenarnya sebagai warga negara surgawi, dan akan mentransformasi tubuh mereka yang fana kepada tubuh yang tidak fana seperti tubuh-Nya sendiri.   The second coming of Christ is the fulfillment of God's promise to humans, after Christ died and ascended to heaven and God's word testifies that He will come back to earth one day. The second coming of Christ is different from His first coming which was prophesied by the prophet both the place and from whose descendants. His second coming is not to bring peace but to judge and uplift believers, so every believer is required to stand guard and continue to wait for that coming with faith and hope that Jesus never breaks His promise of coming and that promise not postponed until the time is even. The second coming of Christ (Parousia) is something that everyone has been waiting for, but this is not known to anyone. Because Jesus himself claimed about it, His coming was like a thief in the night which means that no one can know but Himself. The Apostle Paul gave teachings about the parousia, that His return was a sure thing, even though His time was unknown. But every believer must be vigilant and ready at all times to welcome His coming. The Lord Jesus will come again to raise the dead in Christ, then destroy the devil. This is joyous news, especially because He will bring everyone who believes in Him to heaven, their true place as a citizen of heaven, and will transform their mortal bodies into immortal bodies like His own.


Author(s):  
S. Mark Heim

This concluding chapter to the collection of experiments with Karl Barth and comparative theology explores the two great moments in Barth’s relationship to religions: critique of all religion as idolatry and affirmation that God is free to act in and through religions without restraint. Heim leads with reflection on how his own theological work has been shaped both by interreligious engagement and Barth’s confessional theology. He points out the particular usefulness of Barth’s critique of religion in a time when much recent scholarship has highlighted the problems with the history and use of that term. In addition, Barth is a valuable conversation partner for other religions because of his fierce commitment to the particularity of divine revelation. Late in life, Barth affirmed that God may employ a variety of “parables of the kingdom of heaven,” which opens the possibility that other religious traditions may work in this way. Heim concludes with the suggestion that the “first act of Barth’s insistence on God’s free choice and promise to be present to us in Christ (coupled with recognition that the Christian religion deserves no presumption of that presence) could be balanced by a second act that affirmed God’s freedom to be present and active without restriction.”


1976 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-252
Author(s):  
Stephen McCutchan
Keyword(s):  
To Come ◽  

“Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in this evil day, and having done all, to stand.” –-Ephesians 6:11-13. “Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” –-Romans 8:38-39.


Ecclesiology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-176
Author(s):  
Paul D. Molnar

This article argues that if Catholic and Protestant theologians, prompted by the Holy Spirit, allowed their common faith in God as confessed in the Nicene Creed to shape their thinking and action, this could lead to more visible unity between them. Relying on Barth, the article suggests that the oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity of the church can be understood best in faith that allows the unique object of faith, namely God incarnate in Christ and active in his Spirit, to dictate one’s understanding. Such thinking will avoid the pluralist tendency to eviscerate Christ’s uniqueness and attempts to equate church unity with aspects of the church’s visible existence. These approaches tend to undermine the importance of faith in recognizing that such unity means union with Christ through the Spirit such that it cannot be equated with or perceived by examining only its historical existence in itself and in relation to other communities of faith.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document