Church Dogmatics 1.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God

Church Dogmatics #1.1

by Karl Barth

s/t: Introduction, The Word of God as the Criterion of Dogmatics, The Revelation of God
Described by Pope Pius XII as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas, the Swiss pastor & theologian, Karl Barth, continues to be a major influence on students, scholars & preachers today. Barth s theology found its expression mainly thru his closely reasoned 14-part magnum opus, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik. Having taken over 30 years to write, the Church Dogmatics is regarded as one of the most important theological works of all time, representing the pinnacle of his achievement as a theologian.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christianity, Christian, Nonfiction

528 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1932

About the author

Protestant theologian Karl Barth, a Swiss, advocated a return to the principles of the Reformation and the teachings of the Bible; his published works include Church Dogmatics from 1932.

Critics hold Karl Barth among the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century; Pope Pius XII described him as the most important since Saint Thomas Aquinas. Beginning with his experience as a pastor, he rejected his typical predominant liberal, especially German training of 19th century.

Instead, he embarked on a new path, initially called dialectical, due to its stress on the paradoxical nature of divine truth—for instance, God is both grace and judgment), but more accurately called a of the Word. Critics referred to this father of new orthodoxy, a pejorative term that he emphatically rejected. His thought emphasized the sovereignty of God, particularly through his innovative doctrine of election. His enormously influenced throughout Europe and America.

Reviews

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

In a word: magisterial. In fact, I have been so moved by Barth's theology, at one point I decided to summarize every subsection in the first volume. Here are the fruits of that labor, in case it will help you, dear reader:

1.1 §1 "The Task of Dogmatics" pp. 1-24

002: 1.1 §2 "The Task of Prolegomena to Dogmatics" pp. 25-44

003: 1.1 §3.1 "Talk About God and Church Proclamation" pp. 47-71

004: 1.1 §3.2-4.1 "The Word of God In Its Threefold Form" pp. 71-99

005: 1.1 §4.2-4.4 "The Word of God In Its Threefold Form" pp. 99-124

006: 1.1 §5.1-5.3 "The Nature of the Word of God" pp. 125-162

007: 1.1 §5.4-6.2 "The Nature of the Word of God" pp. 162-198

009: 1.1 §6.3 "The Word of God and Experience" pp. 198-227

010: 1.1 §6.4 "The Word of God and Faith" pp. 227-247

011: 1.1 §7.1 "The Word of God, Dogma, and Dogmatics" pp. 248-275

012: 1.1 §7.2-7.3 "The Word of God, Dogma, and Dogmatics" pp. 275-292

013: 1.1 §8.1-8.2 "The Revelation of God" pp. 295-333

014: 1.1 §8.3 "Vestigium Trinitatis" pp. 333-347

015: 1.1 §9.1 "Unity in Trinity" pp. 348-353

016: 1.1 §9.2 "Trinity in Unity" pp. 353-368

017: 1.1 §9.3 "Triunity" pp. 368-375

018: 1.1 §9.4 "The Meaning of the Doctrine of the Trinity" pp. 375-383

019: 1.1 §10.1 "God as Creator" pp. 384-390

020: 1.1 §10.2 "The Eternal Father" pp. 390-398

021: 1.1 §11.1 "God as Reconciler" pp. 399-414

022: 1.1 §11.2 "The Eternal Son" pp. 414-447

023: 1.1 §12.1 "God as Redeemer" pp. 448-466

024: 1.1 §12.2 "The Eternal Spirit" pp. 466-489

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Karl Barth's goal in this volume is to recover the proclamation of the Word of God as the place where God's message of salvation meets sinful man. Contrary to the shrill reactions from the Reformed crowd, Barth did not deny the truth of the Gospel. However, Barth's message did rework what we mean by “the Bible,” “The Word of God” and “Revelation.” Some of these re-structurings will cause problems to conservative Calvinists. Be that as it may, the reasons why Barth did these things are very instructive and for the present reader, offered a way through many impasses in reading the Bible.

Similar to the hysteria surrounding the academic career of N. T. Wright, Karl Barth also wrote in response to liberalism and modernism—something both his and Wright's critics failed to grasp. Barth denied that God was the “sum total of human experience” (ala Schliermacher) or the “evolution of religious consciousness” (ala Tillich). Rather, God was “wholly other” who meets man through his Revelation. What does Barth mean by “Revelation?” For Barth, Revelation is “the Word become Flesh” (119). The “Word of God” is our meeting said Revelation in the proclamation of the Church (137).

Barth's reading will cause problems for many conservatives, and we should seriously consider these problems. If Barth is correct, then “inerrancy” simply becomes a non-issue. One can still maintain inerrancy, but there is no longer a need to fight that (admittedly difficult) battle. Seeing God's revelation as “the Incarnate Word” is helpful. This is precisely how the apostle John spoke about Jesus and the Word of God. Such a reading brings an urgently personal dimension to issues like Christ and the Bible. This does not mean that our understanding of who Jesus is is now relative and up for grabs. The Bible still remains the criterion for the Church in its proclamation. While no longer seen as literally the “breath of God continually breathing in our quiet time,” and no longer seen as direct, propositional revelation from God, it is still holy men's witness to God's revelation.i It is still the script of the Church. The Bible, though, must now be read and interpreted in the Church. Academic theology is officially finished.

Throughout the volume Barth repeatedly (and helpfully) summarizes his argument. We meet “the Word of God” (which is “speech from God,” cf. 157) in three forms: proclamation, Scripture, and revelation. We can know the Word of God because God's word is “speech.” It is speech to us and speech implies, assuming God isn't insane, a rational speaker. The point, then, of a rationally speaking God is that he speaks to (at least some) men who can (at least some times) rationally receive his message (187, 214).

The structure of Barth's introductory volume will seem peculiar to some. He spends the first half of the volume dealing with problems of revelation and Scripture and then moves into the Trinity. However, there have been hints within Barth's narrative that he planned this all along. Keep in mind that for Barth “revelation” does not equal “propositional speech from/about God,” but rather, revelation is God, or more specifically, The Word of God Incarnate. If that is so, then in discussing revelation we must discuss God, and in discussing God, we must discuss the Trinity.

Barth on Analogy

Barth was notorious for denying the concept of man's analogous reasoning towards God, even calling the doctrine of analogia entis the “artifact of Antichrist.” Critics have since accused Barth of denying all forms of analogy and thus reducing Barth's position to absurdity, for analogous reasoning is inevitable (e.g., when we call God “father” we obviously have at least some human point of reference). But Barth did not deny all forms of analogy. Interestingly, neither do the Eastern Trinitarians. What is being denied is an analogy between God's being and creaturely being. The reason both groups deny this analogy is because the content of the creaturely being (which is what we know) begins to define (and thus limit) our understanding of the divine being. There is no problem, within reason, however, of drawing analogies between God's operations or the divine persons, which Barth does.

Revelation as Trinity

Barth's second half of this volume is a discussion of God as Trinity. This necessarily follows, per his gloss, from his discussion of Prolegomena, because God reveals himself as Trinity. Keep in mind that for Barth God's revelation is not “The Bible” but God himself. It is here that Barth introduces his (in)famous description of God as “three modes of being” (359). By this Barth simply wants to describe God's life in a way that doesn't suffer from the usual definitions of “person.” Men have criticized Barth for using the term “mode” and from that drew the conclusion that Barth is a modalist. I don't think Barth is a modalist, though.i Instead, Barth is drawing upon the Cappadocian notion of tropos huparchos, or mode (way) of being. By this he means that the one God is God in the mode of Father, in the mode of Son, and in the mode of Holy Spirit (359-360).

Mode for Barth is simply his attempt to say what the Church has always meant by “person.” Of course, what the Church has “always meant by person” is a challenge, as Barth gives an excellent survey over the theological etymology of the word “person” (355-358).

The Holy Spirit

Barth makes an interesting suggestion that what we commonly know as the “ordo salutis” should be read, not in a temporal or logical form, as is the case in Reformed textbooks, but in an eschatological manner (464). This foreshadows a lot of the interesting suggestions made by Reformed theologians in the late 20th century.

Barth ends his discussion with a lengthy defense of the Filioque. I wonder how many modern defenders of the Filioque will find it worthwhile. Part of Barth's defense rests upon his “mode of being” constructed. While I don't believe this is necessarily modalistic, most people do and will likely look askance at it. Secondly, he follows what has since become known as “Rahner's Rule:” the immanent trinity is the eschatological trinity (479).

Barth's criticisms of the Eastern view are: it interprets verses in isolation (480); it separates the Spirit from the revelation of the Son (480); and “of” necessarily means “ontologically originating,” since the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son (481).

With regard to the first point, this is no different than the Fundamentalist saying, “Yes, it appears that verse teaches what you believe, but if you read the rest of the Bible you will see that I am correct.” In other words, if you beg the question to my favor ahead of time, you will agree with me. The second objection is asking the question how is the Spirit and Son related to one another. To be fair, I don't think Barth could have been familiar with the Eastern literature on this subject. Most of the Orthodox world when Barth was writing was enslaved to either the Muslims or the Soviets. Barth probably could have consulted Vladimir Lossky, but he didn't. To answer the objection, Gregory II of Cyprus said that the Son eternally manifests the Spirit by his energies. Thus, there is a real connection between the two persons, but not an ontological subordination. Of course, Barth held to absolute divine simplicity (483), so he could not affirm the energies anyway.

His last objection is the weakest. Aside from a reference to Rahner's Rule, he offers no argument that “of = from.” If we take his argument, though, we must also affirm that the Spirit, being God himself, is also seen as the spirit of God, which means that the Spirit must eternally proceed from himself! Even worse, he is also the Spirit of truth, which means he must hypostatically proceed from the attribute of truth. Even worse than that, the Son came into the world by the work of the Holy Spirit. And since, per Barth's gloss, there is a 1:1 correlation between ontology and economy, the Son must necessarily proceed from the Spirit!

Should we even accept Rahner's Rule? If one reads the theological literature, one will rarely come across an actual argument for it. It is is simply posited and that is that. Barth has to maintain it because Barth holds to absolute divine simplicity (483). At the back of this discussion is a certain category of being that applies in the West but not in the East.

Another problem is that advocates of Rahner's rule need to demonstrate that procession is identical with sending, but if it were the Son would proceed from the Father, rather than be begotten.

Barth has some other interesting and problematic comments on the Spirit. He calls the Spirit the “mediating position” between Father and Son (482). If the Spirit is the mediating position between Father and Son, how is perichoresis even possible? Interestingly, Barth does not read the Eastern compromise of dia tou hiou (through the Son) as teaching the Filioque. Make of it what you will.

Conclusions and criticisms

Whenever a theologian sets out to write 9,000+ pages (Church Dogmatics, you will recall, is a largely unfinished work), there will be sections where the reader disagrees. That is to be expected. My disagreements and criticisms of Barth in no way detract from from the sheer awe that is due to the man.

Was Barth consistent?
We agree with Barth that revelation equals the Incarnate Word. We further agree that the Bible cannot simply be defined as “the word of God.” Barth elsewhere notes that God's revelation is God himself, and as such claims Lordship over man. God is both the means and content of revelation (295). Accordingly, Barth is worried about any attempt of man, (for example, the Church) to be in a hermeneutical position vis-a-vis the Scriptures. He notes that if man stands in authority over the Scriptures, the Bible can no longer exercise that free and existential lordship over the Church. As such, he is “self-interpreting” (311).

Unfortunately for us, self-interpreting claims are always ambiguous. It begs the obvious (and unanswerable) question, “Self-interpreting to whom?” While the Word of God can “grasp” the individual believer and meet him with the claims of Lordship, at the end of the day someone has to interpret the Scriptures. Further, if Barth is correct and the location of dogmatics is done in the Church (112), then that someone's interpretation will in some way be binding on said believer's life. (The alternative, of course, is the free church model where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”) At one point Barth appears aware of this problem when he says, “We must bear in mind that the word of God is mediated here, first through the human persons of the prophets and the apostles who receive it and pass it on, and then through the human persons of the expositors and preachers, so that the Holy Scripture and proclamation must always become God's words in order to be it” (304).

This problem is even more pointed earlier in the narrative when Barth (unwittingly) sets Scripture against the Church (97). It is not merely that Barth objects to the idea of an apostolically-ordained bishop (which he doesn't specifically challenge that historicity of such), but also the idea of a teaching office of the Church. Of course, Barth's background is the papal claims of Vatican I, and almost all of his rhetoric is directed against such. The question, though, one can ask Barth is, “How do you know your canon of Scripture is correct?” He doesn't answer the question. He assumes a normative Protestant canon. He does not deal with (at least in this volume of CD) the issue of how the canon came to be. It would be embarrassing for his argument if he did. Keep in mind his claim elsewhere (311) that God's revelation (and by extension, Scripture) is “self-interpreting.” If it is self-interpreting, it is necessarily the highest authority. If that is the case, and I think Barth would agree, then the highest authority must establish itself. This authority, though, does not say anything about the content or goal of a canon. The canon must be established elsewhere.

The problem isn't over, yet. If one establishes the canon elsewhere, one must also do so in light of the fact that for Barth (and most of the Protestant tradition), “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Aside from other hermeneutical problems with that statement, this means that the horizon of Scripture is not determined by Scripture (remember, Scripture says nothing about a fully intact canon). The Church, however, through the holy fathers, says quite a bit about such a horizon. At this point in history when Barth was writing, aside from a few Catholics, nobody raised the question.

Final Thoughts

The book is rightly seen as the beginning of a masterpiece. Even if everything Barth said is all wrong, one cannot deny that he was a master thinker and writer. The book is written with a superior style. The alternating text of large print/small print is an aide to the reader. If one has some history in post-Reformation theology and continental philosophy, the book is actually quite easy to read. Finally, one will get a thorough overview of post-Reformation dogmatics and will be able to speak of these thinkers with confidence.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

Barth creates a fictional truth with no relation to reality. He does advocate for a separate magisterial between theology and science while ignoring reality and all biblical exegesis that transpired 50 years before him (he’s writing in 1933) by claiming authority of the word of God as self-evident revelation creating dogmatics of The Church and its obvious stewardship as the keeper of the faith. For him there is ‘the church’ while ignoring that the early church was fragmented and has remained an amalgamation of various interpretations ever since.

His special brand of faith through his interpretations gives a faith of the specialness of his holy books through mediation with his heart. He’ll say the ‘bible answers for itself as we answer for ourselves’ and that the truth through the word must speak for itself, and the ‘holy scripture, gathered about which the Church from time to time becomes the Church.’ He often appeals to a double bind while asserting circular tautologies which restate what he was demonstrating while selectively stating assertions that have no substance.

Barth is mostly within a brainwashed frame of mind and his use of ‘regular irregular dogmatics’ makes no sense except within the confines of his circular reasoning. There’s a real crisis going on in Germany in 1933 and the best Barth does is double-down on dogmatic statements while the world is melting around him and defend the absurdities by ignoring realities.

Barth establishes the divine hiddenness of his God(s) while stating Free Will must exist by inverting the phenomenology about things and making the existential philosophy about the presence of the things (Heidegger is frequently mentioned in those sections of the book). Husserl’s phenomenology considers everything but the thing to understand and Heidegger inverts the observation by invoking present-at-hand, ready-at-hand and dasein (human).

The first half of the book is a poor defense of theology being relevant beyond mental gymnastics. Barth realizes that the Trinity is not well laid out within the Bible and he mumbles his assertions to why it must be right and that God must have three modes. It all makes sense to him or anyone else who already is brainwashed or in the mythological cult. Dogmatics by their very definition never can improve.

Barth will say the trinity is the kernel of faith and grace comes through the holy spirit. Barth does appeal to the Book of John frequently. John is a frightening book. Jesus will explicitly promise the Holy Spirit after he comes and for anyone who doesn’t believe him ‘darkness’ is promised. Paul participated in revelation through witnessing Jesus through lordship which according to Barth freedom is freely given. This volume seems to have convoluted reasoning throughout.

He did irritate me with some of his proofs for God such as since morality is written on our hearts that proves God(s) exists (Kant says the same thing, but by the end of the complete works of Kant one realizes that he doesn’t believe in God, read him for yourself and see what you think). According to Barth, Jesus must be of the truth because those who knew him best died for him. Barth spends over 100 pages defending that tingling feeling in the stomach that he calls the Holy Spirit and makes one’s personnel experience as proof for the incomprehensible but necessary triune nature of one God in three.

Barth writes in 1933 in a fascist state while advocating for feelings over reason in support of dogmatics. Barth doesn’t like the enlightenment and his conservative religious approach to dogmatics is useful for Hitler and the horror that well come. Barth never questions the tingling in the stomach as anything but his version of brainwashing while special pleading away a Mormon, Hindi, or a Muslim’s same personnel experience to dogmatic truth. The Holy Spirit is a feeling that acts as a Comforter and Barth says that feeling is real and necessary. Hitler uses that similar feeling to install madness while making Germany great again.


He’ll say that Jesus’s reconciliation is not synthetic but is analytic (that’s Kantian language), by saying that Barth means that mental gymnastics mixed with feelings trump reality. For Barth, the holy word itself proves God’s love such that His son revealed Himself. Barth will say only God can reveal Himself. Stop thinking and follow me and let your feelings be your guide cries every fascist leader that ever lived and Barth’s interpretation readily endorses that throughout this work. Wiki tells me that years later he’ll standup to the fascists controlling the Churches, but how did Barth not understand the threat around him and what his dogmatics would lead to?

Barth did mention Ananias and his wife were killed (murdered!) by the Holy Spirit because they held back a small amount of money. Is that the Holy Spirit that is part of the triune God that Barth thinks is certain and special pleads for? Do our feelings ever prove reality while acknowledging others exact opposite truth from feelings contradict our own? Fascists, Christians, Muslims, Hindis, and Mormons all have had a tingle in their stomach and they pretend it comes from a higher power; that doesn’t make the feeling universally true for Barth’s special brand of religion. If anything, it should make one question one’s interpretation of assigning outside holy agency to that feeling.

I wonder what Barth is trying to accomplish with this hodge podge of inane arguments. He’s trying to defend his flavor of Evangelism, but he is really doing a poor job at defending his dogmatics beyond assertions with no substance. He’ll claim that the essence of theology is the word through revelation through his brand of interpretation. I recently completed the Summa Theologia by Thomas Aquinas and it made for better theology than Barth was able to achieve.

This book can only appeal to someone who is already in the mythological framework of Bible inerrancy and thinks the Bible comports to reality. For those people who believe their personnel experiences as interpreted through a superstitious book and believe witches really do exist will find this book a worthwhile read. As for me, I find this book an insult to my intelligence and highly recommend it to those who are brainwashed and believe in myths.

[Tyler McQuilkin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read off and on for months. 1/13th of the way done with the CD 🤯

[Tyler Lund-Hansen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Barth's theology is beautiful. It's so rich, but so, so very long. Instead of a longer review, I'll try to explain three major elements from the first volume of Dogmatics.

But first (and this doesn't have much to do with what I'll write later), let's be thankful for this line: "... our existence can be understood only as an event of inconceivable kindness, or it cannot be understood at all."

Barth writes a good deal about the role of dogmatics, and theology in general. Theology, according to Barth, has far more in common with the church than the academy. It is not a philosophical endeavor embarked upon by wise, learned people. Instead, the task of theology is to ensure that the proclamation of the Church matches the Word of God.

This leads us to Barth's definition of the Word of God, which is another important theme of this volume. At its most simple and basic definition, the Word of God is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. With more nuance, the Word of God should be seen, in Barth's words, in a "three-fold manner." The Christian Scriptures and Church Proclamation have a capacity to "become" the Word of God, but they are not the Word of God in their own nature. (This is in agreement with two very significant themes of Barth's theology: first, the freedom of God, and secondly, his absurdly (and at times obnoxiously) high Christology.

The end of this volume pertains to Barth's Trinitarian thought. Barth (contra Schliermacher) takes the doctrine of the Trinity as his starting point for all further theological reflection. With great precision, Barth writes specifically about the immanent Trinity, the nature of God within God's own life, God's essence. So much of Volume II (the doctrine of God) is derived from Barth's reflections on the economic Trinity. Oddly enough, Barth is quite insistent that proper speech of God calls the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, "modes" or "ways" of being God. (He doesn't like the language of "persons".) He makes a good argument, but it strikes me as a little out of place for a theologian who reminds us-- time and time again-- that we can only speak of God as God has chosen to reveal Himself.

I like Barth's theology. If you've read "Dogmatics in Outline" or "The Humanity of God" and want more Barth, maybe turn here. (Actually, go to Volume II first.) I guess if you really want to read more Barth, you'll enjoy this. But if not, turn to "Dogmatics in Outline." That won't disappoint.

[Timothy Crouch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Man, this Barth guy, he really knew some stuff, huh?

[Johnny · Rating 5 out of 5]

[Note: This is from Part I of Volume 1.1 (Sections 1-7) and all pages are based on the relatively new Study Edition from T & T Clark/Bloomsbury. Older copies may have Part II (Sections 8-12) in the same Volume 1.1 and, in turn, have different page numbers.]

From the very beginning of Karl Barth’s inimitable Church Dogmatics, the 20th century theologian warns us that doing theology is a two-edged “sword” (pardon the pun on a New Testament metaphor for God’s Word). He writes: “…it is exposed to fierce temptation as it speaks of God, and it realizes that it must give an account to God for the way in which it speaks.” (p. 1) Barth immediately rejects some of the, at that time, modern approaches to theology by noting the problems with skepticism and alleged objectivity. Rather, Barth is in line with Calvin’s Omnis recta cognitia Dei ab obedientia nascitur. (“All correct knowledge of God is born of obedience.” – p. 17) Indeed, Barth defers to 18th century Lutheran theologian, David Hollaz, in asserting that talk about God becomes talk expressed to God (p. 24).

Barth’s rejection of the approaches of many other 20th century theologians earned him the designation, Neo-Orthodox, but he explains in Church Dogmatics 1.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God why he doesn’t believe “modernism” can work as an approach to theology. “We regard this Modernist faith as also Christian to the extent that the being of the Church implies in fact a determination of human reality. But we cannot regard it as Christian to the extent that it interprets the possibility of this reality as a human possibility, to the extent that it fails to recognize that this determination of human reality derives and is to be considered only from outside of human possibilities, i.e., from the acting of God Himself, …” (p. 38) For Barth, contemporaries such as Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich are so focused on the human side of the equation that they fail to respond to revelation as external to human perception. Yet, Barth doesn’t expect the human side to be ignored: “God’s assault demands something corresponding on man’s side, i.e., man’s reflection and investigation.” (p. 72) He quotes Paul Althaus in contending, “Theology means performing the act of faith in the sphere of thought.” (p. 81) Clearly, Barth doesn’t intend to throw out rigorous consideration in God-Talk and revert to some reverent-sounding mysticism.

Of course, theological work needs to find its expression in proclamation. So, Barth defines the relationship between revelation and proclamation by asserting that God’s Word is equivalent to God’s positive command (p. 87) “It is the miracle of revelation and faith when the misunderstanding does not constantly recur, when proclamation is for us not just human willing and doing characterized in some way but also and primarily and decisively God’s own act when human talk about God is for us not just that, but also … God’s speech.” (p. 90) There is a continuum between God’s speech, its record in Scripture, and proclamation: “Scripture, as the commencement and present-day preaching as the continuation of one and the same event, … “ (p. 99)

“The Word of God in its veiling, its form, is the claiming of man by God. The Word of God in its unveiling, its content, is God’s turning to man. The Word of God is one.” (p. 176) Barth continues this theme of God as initiator/operative on both sides of the Word of God experience with differing outcomes, a necessary “cognitive dissonance” although Barth doesn’t call this paradox anything like that postmodernist term. For example, Barth notes that while the apostle Paul uses the “cross of Christ” and “resurrection” in close proximity, both terms relating to salvation point in different directions (i.e. what God has accomplished in the past and what offers promise for our future – p. 178). Indeed, I rather enjoyed Barth’s emphasis that to speak of the Holy Spirit in preaching or theology evokes not only the event of revelation for the Word of God but also in humanity’s ability to believe (pp. 179-180). Later, Barth quotes Luther’s distinction: “Work is what we do, but knowledge is of what we receive and take. Thus by the one little word ‘knowing’ as by a mighty thunderclap is all doctrine smitten down which is founded on man’s work.” (p. 192) Barth also makes his own statement on the same page: “The fact of God’s Word does not receive its dignity and validity in any respect or even to the slightest degree from a presupposition that we bring to it. Its truth for us, like its truth in itself, is grounded absolutely in itself.” (p. 192)

Driving into the last portion of this volume (Remember, this study edition divides the original Volume 1.1 into two separate volumes.), Barth asks an incredibly important question to lasso our concepts together. “If we cling to what we can affirm and investigate as the human acknowledgment of God’s Word, to what can be experienced in Christian experience, where shall we find there the criterion by which to distinguish this experience from others, the authentic to the inauthentic?” (p. 212) Essentially, he contends that there is no objective, disinterested knowledge of God’s Word (p. 214). Barth states, “God’s Word lies in God’s Word and nowhere else.” (p. 218) He follows this up with a 19th century illustration from Eduard Bohl’s Dogmatik where Bohl compares one’s epistemological grasp of God’s Word as like the rainbow—appearing to stand on the earth, but doing so only by perception (p. 218).

I particularly liked Barth’s discussion on the pistis complex of meaning. In Barth’s discussion, “[Pistis is the real event which rests on the will and Word of God and relates to the will and Word of God, in which is also included at all events the fact that the proclamation of Christ confirms itself to then, in which men, touched by its truth, themselves become its bearers, and in which the knowledge of God becomes real.” (p. 224) Faith then, serves as acknowledgement of God’s Word which leads to the concrete form of experiencing said Word (p. 225). The idea of faith refers, “…not to our human capacity, but to men on the assumption of their complete incapacity.” (p 234) In this way, Barth comes back to his core emphasis that knowledge, even with human imperfection, is dependent upon God’s initializing and refreshing act(s) of grace. Any analogous understanding to which humans point is as a result of experiencing God as the subject Who causes knowing as opposed to the object of knowing which can be formalized by human reason and presupposition (p. 242).

The final section of Part I (Sections 1-7) of Volume 1.1 (which eventually goes through Section 12) is about the specific problem of defining “Dogmatics” without having the sense that one is trying to control and manipulate the ineffable in revelation to human constraints. Hence, Barth describes God’s Word as, “…provisionally comprehensible and comprehensible in all its incomprehensibility. To say ‘provisionally’ is to indicate the possibility of further insights. To say ‘in all its incomprehensibility’ is to imply that we shall still be moving within fixed limits even in all these further insights.” (p. 250) After a discussion of why the Bible must be a checkpoint despite the veneration of tradition (as equal) in the Roman Catholic approach and philosophy in the Modernist Protestant approach, Barth argues that one must let the Bible “speak” to the points one would make. He accepts no eisogesis. “The conclusion that because I believe, and because for me as a believer the Bible is the Word of God, therefore and thus far it is God’s Word, destroys the divinity of the Word of God, since it is no longer understood as the Word that stands over the Church and is directed to it.” (p. 258) [Take that Albert Mohler and the rest of you so-called “fundamentalists” who try to shape the Bible in your own image!]

The Church’s task in “dogmatics” is seeking the “Dogma” which is true. “Dogma is the agreement of Church proclamation with the revelation attested in the Holy Scripture.” (pp. 261, 278) “But a theology claiming to know and have dogma would be a theologia gloriae, which the dogmatics of the Church ought not to seek to be.” (p. 264) Finally, Barth divided the task of dogmatics into regular dogmatics (academic explorations—p. 271) and irregular dogmatics (unsystematic but thoughtful reactions to issues and circumstances—p. 273). He warns against complacency in the task (p. 277), but warns that excessively critical and analytic approaches may reduce the living Word to a mere historical record (p. 277). His closing agenda is that dogmatics requires: 1) an explicit doctrine of Holy Scripture (p. 283), 2) and explicit doctrine of Church proclamation (p. 283), and 3) a consideration of God’s Word in three forms (God’s speech, God’s act, and “God’s mystery” – p. 284).

For those who begin the volume in basic agreement with Barth, portions of the book may seem redundant. For those not used to reading German philosophy or theology, one may not understand that Barth details positions with which he disagrees in painstaking detail before he dissects them from his perspective. If you’re used to reading immediate point-counterpoint arguments, you may be disappointed. Yet, this is a classic work. It can be read both as a historic challenge to Modernist Protestantism or merely read as a way to shake up one’s own theological complacency, but it should be read. For those who haven’t read Barth but may be interested, I wholeheartedly commend the new “Study Edition” volumes as they make translating the numerous Latin and German quotations painless.

[John Coatney · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've worked my way through this first volume of Barth's Church Dogmatics by reading five pages a day. At this rate, I'll finish the Dogmatics in about 10 years.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first volume, with can be divided into two sections: the first on "The Word of God as the Criterion of Dogmatics," and the second on the revelation of God in terms of his triunity. His discussion of the threefold form of the Word of God (preached, written, and revealed) was insightful, as was his approach regarding the Trinity as the key of God's revelation.

Naturally, a dogmatics as Reformed as Barth's will differ significantly in some places from my own, having adopted an Orthodox Christian approach toward the revelation of God. I still think, though, that there is much to learn and benefit from in Barth's work, and I look forward to my exploration of the rest of his magnum opus.

[Sam Lenhardt · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I have serious disagreements with many of his conclusions, it's undeniable that Barth was a brilliant theologian well versed in all aspects of the discipline. His theology has a deep richness and coherence that I never realized until I actually read his works. But at the same time, I'm convinced after slogging through this volume that the man doesn't know how to write a straightforward sentence. Barth's stream of consciousness writing style makes his presentation of his arguments unclear and difficult to follow. While there is undoubtedly a wealth of insight to be gained from his writings, it will not be had easily.

[Robert Beveridge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Karl Barth, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Scribner, 1936)

Depending on your point of view, Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics is either the greatest religious treatise, or the greatest piece of intellectual masturbation, of the twentieth century. Either way, you have to admit it's an enormously impressive achievement. Spanning just shy of nine thousand pages over the course of fourteen volumes, Church Dogmatics is the go-to reference when it comes to Protestant theology; no matter how obscure the point you want insight on, Barth has probably analyzed it straight into the ground and back out the other side. (I should note here that, for the first time, to mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of the current edition, T&T Clark are—finally!—releasing a paperback edition of Church Dogmatics. The page count will be smaller by two thousand, but the volume count is more than doubled. Riddle me that, Batman.)

Despite my not being a Christian—despite, in fact, my decided antipathy toward the Church—I have long wanted to read the Church Dogmatics, simply because Barth actually found nine thousand pages' worth of material to address as regards the Church. (Also because Barth is, when it comes down to it, a very good writer; his essay on Mozart is sure to be enjoyed by Christian and secular readers alike.) After a decade and a half of waffling on the idea, I decided to bite the bullet and sit down with volume one this year, and continue on through the series at the rate of one book a year (while noting the irony that if I'd started in 1993, I'd be done now). And, thus, we come to The Doctrine of the Word of God, the first volume (the preface, really) of Church Dogmatics, and why a heathen like me is sitting here getting ready to review it. I say “getting ready” despite that fact that I've already written three hundred odd words because, obviously, I haven't actually addressed the content of the book yet.

It's pretty obvious that over the course of nine thousand pages, Barth has all the room he could possibly need to delve as deeply into whatever subject he's got his teeth into at any given moment as he needs to. In this case (and I should mention that these five hundred seventy-five pages comprise Chapter One and the first half of Chapter Two), Barth is still getting warmed up. The first book is about how to approach dogmatics (which is, of course, the study of dogma), not dogmatics itself. The definition of dogmatics as it relates to the Church (the Lutheran Church in particular, naturally), how the definition of dogmatics in the Protestant Church differs from the definition of dogmatics in the Catholic Church, and what all this means with regards to how Barth will approach the subject for the nest eight thousand four hundred pages.

For those of you who feel the need to skim, Barth's translator, (the no doubt long-suffering) T. F. Torrance, notes that it's possible to simply read the bits that are printed in regular font and ignore the stuff printed in small font (since Barth will often go off on tangents running two of three pages, it seemed more confusing than it was worth, I guess, to try and make footnotes out of these passages). I, on the other hand, am here to tell you that if you don't read the fine print, you're going to miss out on all the fun this book has to offer. Yes, I did say, and mean, “fun”. For all that this project has an air of the dry and scholarly about it, when Barth hits his stride, he can be just as catty as Paris Hilton with a Swiss accent; back in the days before the Internet, printed exchanges of heated debate were not uncommon (there's a great example in Pick's book of criticism on Gerard Manley Hopkins' “The Windhover”); Barth, while writing the updated 1934 edition of the Dogmatics, was obviously embroiled in quite a few of these, and he often used these “diversion passages” (it's misleading to call them footnotes) to express his frustration that a particular critic didn't get what he was on about, expound on hos another dogmatist had missed the mark entirely on a particular point, or what have you. It's great stuff. We all know there are few things more fun to watch (though less fun to participate in) than a heated religious debate; I grant you, we're only getting one side here, but that doesn't make the schadenfreude any less delightful.

All that said, it is hard going; I ended up taking an extended break once I'd gotten about halfway through the book and coming back to it five months later, when I felt that I was ready to handle Barth's (or Torrance's, though having read any number of bad translations from Germanic languages—and one or two literal word-for-word translations of Barth—I have to say that Torrance did a damned fine job of making this book as readable as he could) long-winded, digressive style once again. This is not a book you'll be keeping by the window bench for light reading while you're gazing out at the tulip beds. Barth's goal was to create as definitive a religious reference as possible, and the style reflects that. So I can't really say that this is the kind of thing you're going to find yourself reading for pleasure...unless you're me, because obviously I'm doing just that. If you do decide to take the plunge with me, however, even if you're just as much a heathen as I am, reading something this huge is really its own reward. ***

[James Korsmo · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is immediately apparent that the reader is encountering a phenomenal work of theology herein. I'm not sure how much of a Barthian I am, and I definitely have concerns about some of the details of his theological project, but the core emphasis on the immediacy of God in his threefold Word (Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the proclamation of the church) is profound and compelling. Though an extensive undertaking, reading this part volume is well worth the investment.

[Brad · Rating 5 out of 5]

I take issue with this and that. But there are more this's, and that's of substance in one page of his writing than whole chapters of other theologies.

For better or for worse,

B. Grizenko

Ages 25+

[James Prothero · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but like sanding a piece of wood . . . for 4000 hours straight

[Edward McNulty · Rating 4 out of 5]

Have read sections. Deep.

[Ryan Turnbull · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty mid.

[Leon O'Flynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am not sure what I can add in any review of this work. Barth outlines the Christian faith in a powerful manner. These volumes are not for the faint-hearted and do take some time to work through. I am using a reading plan, and am a little behind. The link to the plan is below, you can read it all in a year.

https://www.walkingtogetherministries...

[Ben De Bono · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first two volumes in Church Dogmatics deal with the doctrine of the Word of God. Among evangelicals, this is one of the more controversial areas of his theology, due to Barth's rejection of traditional evangelical teachings on inerrancy.

Given that I still have one more volume to go on Barth's doctrine of the Word of God, I'll hold off for now commenting on the controversial elements of his theology. I will say that the material present in this first volume is profound and phenomenal. Barth's writing on proclamation of the Word was especially impactful for me. It gave words to ideas I've been thinking about for a while now and is in stark contrast to the low view of preaching that exists in much of evangelicalism. If Barth is right in what he says about proclamation (and after a first reading I'm very much inclined to agree with him) than we ought to not only have a higher view of preaching but also a higher overall ecclesiology. I'll definitely be revisiting what he says about proclamation and anyone who does any sort of preaching owes it to themselves and their congregation to read through what Barth has to say on the topic.

I also loved how Barth establishes the Trinity as the absolute foundation of his theology. Seeing the Trinity as the means by which we understand the Word of God broadens our view of the Word in a way that I found quite healthy and impactful. His writing on the Trinity and explanation of the trinitarian relationships were wonderful and very thought provoking. Again, this is material that I'll need to revisit to fully grasp what Barth has to say.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't have the time or space to write a full review on this incredibly influential piece of work. Let me quickly state three things:



1) The three-fold Word of God (Jesus Christ, Scripture, and Preaching) developed by Barth is nothing short of brilliant.



2) It really picks up half-way through when Barth develops the doctrine of the Trinity. It is significant that Barth places the trinity in the prolegamma as the trinitarian ground of God's own being serves as the basis of God's self-revelation. The God who reveals Himself is Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity.



3) In speaking of the Trinity, Barth uses the term "modes of being" to describe the persons of the trinity. Naturally Barth gets accused of being a modalist. I was quite surprised that upon reading I found Barth much closer to Augustine than I ever imagined. I found Barth empasizing the unity of the Godhead much more than the plurality of the Godhead that modalists tend to emphasize.

[James Stacey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Difficult. Worked me hard, but that in itself was rewarding. Barth's main theme is the 'apartness' of God and man. He refuses to allow natural theology any space. Revelation - a very Barthian word - is an absolute miracle of grace. Does he overstate this? Has his reformed stance been pushed to an unscriptural overbalance? Many would say so, though I have to say Barth puts up a strong case for it. But it wasn't this main thrust, but some of the side discussions I most enjoyed - in particular Barth's seminal and fascinating discussions on the Trinity (which he sees as the fountainhead of all Christian theology, because it is the essence of the revealed God). Stimulating reading.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent and inspiring exploration of the doctrine of the Word of God as it relates primarily to the nature of revelation and as revelation relates to the Holy Trinity. Barth's focus on the sovereignty of God, among so many other things is masterful. A broad knowledge of Patristics, Scholasticism, the Protestant Reformers, and 19th Century liberal and existentialist theologians is extremely helpful as Barth assumes his reader is familiar with historical theology. The ability to read Greek and Latin is a must as well, since this edition of Church Dogmatics does not provide translations and the Greek and Latin texts are importan to Barth's writing.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, I did it. I got through one volume of Barth. This is like jumping into the Pacific Ocean and naming all the creatures in the sea with God at you side. The vision of Scirpture preached as God speaking in Word in Spirit is powerful and the outline of the Trinity as One God dancing in community is awe inspiring.
The Latin can be gotten through with a dictionary if you find it necessary. I did read some on occassion but mainly I skipped it and just tried to take in as much of this giants thoughts as I could. I found him to be a man who spoke before his time to our very day.

[Toby · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a bit rough getting started, but if you get through the first hundred pages or so, Barth bursts out into some great stuff. Barth's Church Dogmatics is the first systematic theology that made me really love Jesus as I read his descriptions of the doctrine of the Word. Truly doxological. I would read portions of CD 1.1 as a devotional. And of course, I don't agree with everything he says, even though I think he's frequently misunderstood.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is just a great text in neo-orthodoxy. Karl Barth provides an answer to the problem of God's existence in a world captivated by materialism and realism. He is a fundamental break with 19th Century theology and this first volume covers the groundwork in which the rest of his Church Dogmatics takes place.

[Tyson Guthrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Obviously a classic. An essential read for all serious theologians, and especially any who would critique Barth. I might recommend the new T&T Clark Study Edition for those who don't read Latin. (Greek and French are also untranslated in the T&T Clark 1975/Hendrickson 2010 edition, but are less extensively quoted.)

[Dane Jöhannsson · Rating 3 out of 5]

You have to know what you are getting into when reading Barth. He is an expert historical theologian and a noble exegete, but his conclusions are often wrong. He tried to shake off his liberalism and failed. This book was crucial in my journey to embracing Reformed Orthodoxy and rejecting all forms of modernism. This volume is a case study in what the Scriptures are not.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jeepers.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Barth's notion of "experiencing the Word of God" is fascinating. As a professor of mine once said, no reading of Barth in unprofitable....

[Ian Guy]

I found this too difficult to understand.

[Stephen Morrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible!

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Verbose doesn't even begin to explain.