scholarly journals anhypostasis and enhypostasis: Barth’s Christological method in view of Chalcedon – its nuance and complexity

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James P Haley
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Divine Essence ◽  
Human Essence ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of

Karl Barth departs from historical Protestant orthodoxy in his unique adoption of the dual formula anhypostasis and enhypostasis to explain the union of divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ. For Barth, these concepts help explain why the person of Jesus Christ must not be viewed statically in his being as the God-man, but dynamically in the event of God’s movement of grace towards humanity. As such, Barth applies these concepts in his analysis of the Chalcedon definition of the Jesus Christ who exists as one person with two natures. In so doing, Barth further develops Chalcedon’s definition of the two natures of Christ based upon the hypostatica unio. Not only must Chalcedon be interpreted through the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as event, but also event in the union of this human essence as the Son of Man as it participates in the divine essence. For Barth, the emphasis is not the combining of divine and human essence into one being, but that the eternal Christ has taken to himself human essence as the one Reconciler.

scholarly journals Humanity matters: The strange priestly yes of God actualised amidst the struggles of life

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-140
Author(s):  
Anlené Taljaard
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Natural Theology ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Son Of God ◽  
Son Of Man ◽  
Redemptive History ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
Insight Into

Barth’s rejection of natural theology gives the impression that his theology holds only negative views of anthropology. A description of the office of the priesthood of Christ offers insight into how humanity matters in the theology of Karl Barth. The article argues that Christ, the priest, actualised and effectuated the strange priestly yes of God to humanity. The strange priestly yes of God to humanity can be understood, as grounded upon the radical yes of God to humanity, revealed and actualised in the incarnated person and redemptive history of Jesus Christ as the one who is the Son of God and the Son of man.

Barth and Reformation Theology

2019 ◽  
pp. 100-115
Author(s):  
Randall C. Zachman
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Protestant Reformation ◽  
Word Of God ◽  
Reformation Theology ◽  
The One ◽  
The Church ◽  
Free Word

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.

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

1962 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-203
Author(s):  
G. W. Bromiley
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
English Translation ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
The Other ◽  
Great Length ◽  
Church Dogmatics ◽  
The One

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.

The Spirit

2019 ◽  
pp. 293-308
Author(s):  
Wolf Krötke
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Holy Spirit ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
The Holy Spirit ◽  
Doctrine Of The Trinity ◽  
The One ◽  
Bear Witness ◽  
The Church ◽  
The Trinity

This chapter presents Barth’s understanding of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Jesus Christ. It demonstrates the way in which Barth’s pneumatology is anchored in his doctrine of the Trinity: the Holy Spirit is understood as the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, the One whose essence is love. But Barth can also speak of the Holy Spirit in such a way that it seems as if the Holy Spirit is identical to the work of the risen Jesus Christ and his ‘prophetic’ work. The reception of the pneumatology of Karl Barth thus confronts the task of relating these dimensions of Barth’s understanding of the Holy Spirit so that the Spirit’s distinct work is preserved. For Barth, this work consists in enabling human beings to respond in faith, with their human possibilities and their freedom, to God’s reconciliation in Jesus Christ. In this faith, the Holy Spirit incorporates human beings into the community of Jesus Christ—the community participates in the reconciling work of God in order to bear witness to God’s work to human beings, all of whom have been elected to ‘partnership’ with God. Barth also understood the ‘solidarity’ of the community with, and the advocacy of the community for, the non-believing world to be a nota ecclesiae (mark of the church). Further, to live from the Holy Spirit, according to Barth, is only possible in praying for the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology

2001 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall E. Otto
Keyword(s):  
General Concept ◽  
Eighth Century ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Divine Essence ◽  
Necessary Being ◽  
Social Doctrine ◽  
Doctrine Of The Trinity ◽  
The One ◽  
The Trinity ◽  
Important Form

Perichoresis (perichoresis, circumincessio) is a theological term which describes the ‘necessary being-in-one-another or circumincession of the three divine Persons of the Trinity because of the single divine essence, the eternal procession of the Son from the Father and of the Spirit from the Father and (through) the Son, and the fact that the three Persons are distinguished solely by the relations of opposition between them.’ This term was popularized in the eighth century by John of Damascus who, in his De fide orthodoxa, said the three Persons of the Trinity ‘are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other [kai ten en allelais perichoresin] without any coalescence or commingling.’ This important theological term, which Karl Barth rightly regarded 'as the one important form of the dialectic required to complete the concept of ‘three-in-oneness’ ‘from the side of the unity of the divine essence’ and ‘from the side of the original relations,’ has suffered in some recent theology from its appropriation to describe relationality apart from mutually shared being. For example, in his influential social doctrine of the Trinity, Jürgen Moltmann emphasizes the ‘relational, perichoretically consummated life processes’ of the three Persons who ‘cannot and must not be reduced to three modes of being of one and the same divine subject,’ whose unity ‘cannot and must not be seen in a general concept of divine substance.’

Myth and Symbol:I. Tillich's Definition of Unbroken Myth

1965 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
Karl Barth ◽  
The Other ◽  
Paul Tillich ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
Characteristic Relation ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Fundamental Distinction ◽  
Detailed Interpretation ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of

Paul Tillich did not contribute a detailed essay to the discussion of the programme of ‘Entmythologisierung’ (demythologising) as did Karl Barth or Karl Jaspers. However, it will not escape the reader of his works that Tillich has often expressed his views on this theme, though it be only by a brief reference. The question of the interpretation of myth has not only engaged him during the last decade; on the contrary, more than 30 years ago, Tillich had explained his position in systematic form in the article on myth in the 2nd edition of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Tillich has not substantially departed from the essential points of this position. On the one hand, Tillich is concerned with the fundamental distinction between unbroken and broken myth, and on the other hand, with the equally characteristic relation which he draws between myth and symbol. These definitions and questions permit us in the following detailed interpretation to construct a form adequate to Tillich's thinking. First we will present Tillich's understanding of unbroken myth, and second, his definition of broken myth, which in its determining points is an interpretation having recourse to his definition of symbol.

Karl Barth's Christological Treatment of Sin

2001 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Jorgenson
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Proper Place ◽  
In Christ ◽  
The One ◽  
Theological Thought

A christological treatment of sin is, for Karl Barth, the only possibility for those who wish to know something of that which opposes life in Christ. Such a treatment must be christologically ordered in so far as Christ remains the arche, teloas, and nomos of theological thought. It is not coincidental, then, that his treatment of sin is proper to the doctrine of reconciliation and ordered by the christological assertion that Jesus Christ is truly God, truly human, and the unity of these as the ‘guarantor and witness of our atonement.’ Indeed, the knowledge of sin is only possible in the light of the revelation of God and humanity in the God-man Jesus Christ. Consequently, the doctrine of reconciliation is the proper place for the knowledge of sin in so far as Jesus, the one who knew no sin, was made to be sin ‘so that we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor. 5:21). To know sin one must face the one who became sin for our sakes.

Seek God where he may be found: a response to Edwin Chr. van Driel

2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce McCormack
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Logical Relation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Doctrine Of Election ◽  
The One

I would like to begin by expressing gratitude to Edwin van Driel for creating the conditions which make possible a genuine debate on the issues raised by my essay in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. I have, of course, long been aware of Paul Molnar's (shall we say?) rather vigorous rejection of the position I took in that essay on the question of the logical relation of election to the triunity of God in Barth's ‘mature’ theology – i.e. subsequent to publishing his revised doctrine of election in CD II/2. If I have kept silence this long, it has not been without good reason. I was unwilling to respond to Molnar for two reasons. First, in his criticisms of my views, Molnar failed to engage the one point which would have been decisive for launching a serious ‘debate’, i.e. he made no attempt to explain the meaning of Barth's thesis that Jesus Christ is the subject of election or to show how his own reading of Barth is not called into question by that thesis. He simply set it aside as (apparently) unworthy of discussion and chose instead to merely insist on his own reading. It should go without saying that no real ‘debate’ can take place when the evidence brought forth to support a new proposal is passed over in silence. Less important was the second reason.

The Covenant in the Theology of Karl Barth

1964 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Central Point ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Knowledge Of God ◽  
The One

In the theology of Karl Barth the fact of the life, death and J. resurrection of Jesus Christ is not merely the central point in our knowledge of God and His ways, a central point which might, however, be merely one, the greatest one, in a series of ways whereby we might know God and learn to speak about God. The Incarnation is for Barth the one and only revelation of God to men. In page after page he stresses that man by his unaided efforts can never know God. It is not only that man's reason is inadequate to read of God in the works of His hands, but by the fact of the Fall man has, ‘made himself quite impossible in relation to the redemptive Grace of God; and in so doing has made himself quite impossible in his created being as man, who has cut the ground from under his feet, who has lost his whole raison d'être‘ (p. 10). For such a man the knowledge of God has become quite out of the question, an utter impossibility, which can only again become possible in the quite incomprehensible ‘yet and never the less’ of the Grace of God in Jesus Christ, in Jesus Christ alone.

Understanding functional illiteracy from a policy, adult education, and cognition point of view: Towards a joint referent framework

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-122
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Bulajić ◽  
Miomir Despotović ◽  
Thomas Lachmann
Keyword(s):  
Adult Education ◽  
Operational Definition ◽  
Literacy Skills ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Functional Illiteracy ◽  
Scale Levels ◽  
Components Of Reading ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract. The article discusses the emergence of a functional literacy construct and the rediscovery of illiteracy in industrialized countries during the second half of the 20th century. It offers a short explanation of how the construct evolved over time. In addition, it explores how functional (il)literacy is conceived differently by research discourses of cognitive and neural studies, on the one hand, and by prescriptive and normative international policy documents and adult education, on the other hand. Furthermore, it analyses how literacy skills surveys such as the Level One Study (leo.) or the PIAAC may help to bridge the gap between cognitive and more practical and educational approaches to literacy, the goal being to place the functional illiteracy (FI) construct within its existing scale levels. It also sheds more light on the way in which FI can be perceived in terms of different cognitive processes and underlying components of reading. By building on the previous work of other authors and previous definitions, the article brings together different views of FI and offers a perspective for a needed operational definition of the concept, which would be an appropriate reference point for future educational, political, and scientific utilization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document