Pneumatology Of Karl Barth And Wolfhart Pannenberg

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koo D. Yun
Keyword(s):  
Karl Barth ◽  
Wolfhart Pannenberg

scholarly journals Die Christelike hoop – ’n Bybels eskatologiese belydenis? Deel 2: Teologiese besinning: Wat beteken die Christelike hoop?

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan A. Du Rand
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Theological Reflection ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Ernst Bloch ◽  
Gabriel Marcel ◽  
Full Circle ◽  
Wolfhart Pannenberg ◽  
Philosophical Argumentation ◽  
Selection Of

Hierdie is die tweede artikel wat die vraag moet beantwoord of die Christelike eskatologiese hoop by uitnemendheid die primêre eskatologiese belydenis is van die Christelike teologie soos in die Bybel gefundeer. Is dit enigsins ook die geval in ’n verskeidenheid van teologiese en filosofiese argumentasies? In die eerste artikel is die basis gelê deur die bybelse spoor van die Christelike eskatologiese hoop te beskryf. In Deel 2 wat op Deel 1 volg, is die fokus op die teologiese bespreking rakende die Christelike eskatologiese hoop. Die verdere vraag wat beantwoord moet word is: Wat is die teologiese kern en inhoud van die Christelike eskatologiese hoop? Binne hierdie raamwerk van argumentasie, en verbandhoudend met die onderwerp, word ook van die filosofiese tendense van veral Immanuel Kant, Gabriel Marcel en Ernst Bloch kennis geneem. Die betekenisvolle teologiese sieninge van Johannes Calvyn, Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Moltmann en Hendrikus Berkhof word ook aangeraak. Hierdie artikel konkludeer met ’n eie standpuntstelling oor die Christelike hoop as noodsaaklike eskatologiese raamwerk wat die Christen se uitsig, verwagtinge en etos [leefstyl] bepalend raak. Die Christelike siening van hoop, gefundeer in die opwekking van Jesus Christus uit die dood, word volmaak afgerond wanneer ‘God alles in alles sal wees’ (1 Kor 15:28) by die finale einde. The Christian hope – a Biblical eschatological confession? Part 2: Theological reflection: What is the meaning of the Christian hope? This is the second of two articles answering the question whether the Christian hope can be seen as the ultimate biblical eschatological confession. Is it by interpretative reflection also the viewpoint of a selection of topic related theologians and philosophers? In the first article the foundation was done by determining what the ultimate expression and confession describing Biblical eschatology is. The motivated finding was formulated as the eschatological concept hope. Building on the first, the second article’s focus falls on the consequential theological discussion. The further question to be answered is: What is the theological core and content of Christian eschatological hope in a wider framework than the biblical? Within such a framework of argumentation and in terms of tendencies the philosophical argumentation of Immanuel Kant, Gabriel Marcel and Ernst Bloch on hope are taken notice of. The comprehensive theological views on hope by Johannes Calvyn, Karl Barth, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jürgen Moltmann and Hendrikus Berkhof are also briefly mentioned. This article concludes with an own viewpoint on Christian hope as eschatological framework, determining one’s views, expectations and ethos (lifestyle). The eschatological view of hope, grounded in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is a confession, coming to a full circle when ‘God will be all in all’ (1 Cor 15:28) at the final end. 

scholarly journals Menslike behoeftes as sistematies-teologiese kernbegrip

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 964-985
Author(s):  
CJ Pauw
Keyword(s):  
Theological Anthropology ◽  
Karl Barth ◽  
Systematic Theology ◽  
Core Concept ◽  
Church Dogmatics ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
The Third ◽  
Wolfhart Pannenberg ◽  
Doctrine Of Creation

Human needs is not part of the traditional themes of systematic theology or even of theological anthropology.  This article argues that human needs is a core concept in systematic theology even though it has not been an explicit theme of systematic theology. The concept of human needs is essentially related to the content of systematic theology. Any articulation of the doctrine of creation, covenant or salvation is underpinned by a view of what human needs are. This article shows that the question of human needs is normally related to systematic theology by referring to the task of systematic theology and the different modes of discourse found in which systematic theology gives expression to this task. This article also suggest a method by which an implicit concept of human needs may be discovered and engaged critically. This is demonstrated by analysis of two designs of theological anthropology: Karl Barth’ s second part of the third volume of his Church Dogmatics and the fundamental-theological anthropology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. 

The Function of the Immanent Trinity in the Theology of Karl Barth: Implications for Today

1989 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Molnar
Keyword(s):  
Karl Barth ◽  
Word Of God ◽  
Sharp Distinction ◽  
History Of ◽  
Wolfhart Pannenberg ◽  
The Trinity

Many modern theologians, including Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg and Eberhard Jüngel have been influenced by Karl Barth; they also accept Karl Rahner's axiom that the immanent and economic trinity is identical. By accepting this axiom, however, they actually stand opposed to Barth's most basic theological insight, namely, that ‘a deliberate and sharp distinction between the Trinity of God as we may know it in the Word of God revealed, written and proclaimed, and God's immanent Trinity, i.e., between “God in Himself” and “God for us,” between the “eternal history of God and His temporal acts,”’ must be maintained in order to avoid confusing and reversing the role of Creator in relation to creature both theoretically and practically. This article will explore Barth's reasons for neither identifying, separating nor synthesizing the immanent and economic trinity; and will contrast his method with more recent theological approaches. We hope to show that the contemporary tendency to identify the immanent and economic trinity uncritically compromises God's freedom. Barth was concerned that Moltmann had subsumed ‘all theology in eschatology’:To put it pointedly, does your theology of hope really differ at all from the baptized principle of hope of Mr Bloch? What disturbs me is that for you theology becomes so much a matter of principle (an eschatological principle).… Would it not be wise to accept the doctrine of the immanent trinity of God? Barth hoped that Moltmann would ‘outgrow’ this ‘onesidedness’.

Graham Ward’s Postmodern Karl Barth

2011 ◽  
Vol null (43) ◽  
pp. 133-155
Author(s):  
오승성
Keyword(s):  
Karl Barth
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document