What do you think?
Rate this book
Church Dogmatics #1.2
Church Dogmatics 1.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God
Described by Pope Pius XII as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas, the Swiss pastor and theologian, Karl Barth, continues to be a major influence on students, scholars and preachers today.Barth s theology found its expression mainly through his closely reasoned fourteen-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, and represents the pinnacle of Barth s achievement as a theologian.>
905 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1938
13 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
About the author
Karl Barth
454 books263 followersProtestant 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 26, 2012
In Barth's second volume we come to his quite controversial position (at least among Evangelicals) on Scripture. I've heard many claims that Barth doesn't affirm the Bible as the Word of God and that he questions the divine nature of Scripture.
Knowing I was entering controversial territory, I tried to go into this volume with an open mind and not bias myself one way or another. After finishing this volume, I find myself a bit shocked and perplexed that there's any controversy at all. Honestly, the whole thing seems to be much ado about nothing.
It's true that Barth does draw a distinction between the Word of God (Jesus) and Scripture (the testimony and witness to the Word). However, this is largely, though not entirely, a question of semantics. From a practical stand point, Barth sees Scripture in largely the same terms as historic Protestantism has. Despite the distinction he draws, he even refers to Scripture as the Word of God on multiple occasions.
What his distinction does do is guard against the Bibliolatry that some in the Protestant tradition have unfortunately fallen into. Our faith is not in a book but in God. That doesn't change the importance of Scripture one bit, but it does put it in an appropriate context. The Bible is not the end but a means to an end. Yes, it is our standard. Yes, it is authoritative. But it is not itself God. Barth does an excellent job of nuancing that distinction.
The other area where his view is controversial is in his assertion that Scripture is infallible. Here again I think people are getting hung up on the words Barth uses rather than really understanding his meaning. Since Barth wrote, the evangelical definition of infallibility has, by and large, become much more nuanced. We have a greater understanding of the importance of genre and cultural context in interpreting Scripture. Things that at one point would have been considered errors melt away when we see Scripture in light of its culture. Therefore, a nuanced definition of infallibility is quite close to what Barth advocates. What it seems he is really arguing against is a wooden literalism that, unfortunately, remains all too common.
My favorite section of this volume was toward the end where Barth talks about the importance of both hearing and teaching when it comes to dogmatics. He shows how the hearing of dogmatics ought to lead to the teaching of the Word and vice versa. He also argues strongly against any member of the Church simply being a passive recipient of the Word. It's brilliant stuff and I'll be returning to it regularly, both for my benefit and to aid in my teaching others.
Knowing I was entering controversial territory, I tried to go into this volume with an open mind and not bias myself one way or another. After finishing this volume, I find myself a bit shocked and perplexed that there's any controversy at all. Honestly, the whole thing seems to be much ado about nothing.
It's true that Barth does draw a distinction between the Word of God (Jesus) and Scripture (the testimony and witness to the Word). However, this is largely, though not entirely, a question of semantics. From a practical stand point, Barth sees Scripture in largely the same terms as historic Protestantism has. Despite the distinction he draws, he even refers to Scripture as the Word of God on multiple occasions.
What his distinction does do is guard against the Bibliolatry that some in the Protestant tradition have unfortunately fallen into. Our faith is not in a book but in God. That doesn't change the importance of Scripture one bit, but it does put it in an appropriate context. The Bible is not the end but a means to an end. Yes, it is our standard. Yes, it is authoritative. But it is not itself God. Barth does an excellent job of nuancing that distinction.
The other area where his view is controversial is in his assertion that Scripture is infallible. Here again I think people are getting hung up on the words Barth uses rather than really understanding his meaning. Since Barth wrote, the evangelical definition of infallibility has, by and large, become much more nuanced. We have a greater understanding of the importance of genre and cultural context in interpreting Scripture. Things that at one point would have been considered errors melt away when we see Scripture in light of its culture. Therefore, a nuanced definition of infallibility is quite close to what Barth advocates. What it seems he is really arguing against is a wooden literalism that, unfortunately, remains all too common.
My favorite section of this volume was toward the end where Barth talks about the importance of both hearing and teaching when it comes to dogmatics. He shows how the hearing of dogmatics ought to lead to the teaching of the Word and vice versa. He also argues strongly against any member of the Church simply being a passive recipient of the Word. It's brilliant stuff and I'll be returning to it regularly, both for my benefit and to aid in my teaching others.
June 23, 2010
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I.ii.: The Doctrine of the Word of God (T & T Clark, 1956)
We are almost 1,250 pages into the monstrosity known as Church Dogmatics before Karl Barth actually addresses the topic of dogmatics. It's frustrating, but it's also kind of brilliant, because after 1,250 pages of setup, assuming you've lasted that far, you're really wondering when Barth is going to get down to brass tacks. Rest assured, he does.
It took me thirteen months, on and off, to bull my way through the nine-hundred-odd pages of the second half of the first volume of Church Dogmatics (and the first two volumes, remember, are just the introduction to the larger work!). Usually I take stock after I've been struggling with a book for twelve months and decide whether or not I'm going to defenestrate it with extreme prejudice. The list of books I've been reading on and off for over a year that I don't do that with is very small (I can count them on one hand). I.ii. is one of those books; the thought of abandoning it never even entered my mind. Why? Because despite Barth being a long-winded guy (to say the least) and some clumsiness in the translation here, and despite (or perhaps because of) my not being a Christian, I find Barth's declamation on how to be a preacher fascinating. As with the first book, I.ii. is a fine history lesson in many ways, as Barth takes innumerable side-jaunts into the thoughts of other contemporary theologians of his time, relates what he's saying to current events, et al. (Like the first volume, I.ii. was written during the early to mid-1930s in Germany; World War II buffs, even those with no interest in theology, will find some very interesting asides.) Barth is also a consummate logician, as long as you're willing to buy the spiritual aspects of what he's saying. Even if you're not, it's impossible to argue with the way he constructs his logic, in part because he's one of the only logicians I've ever read who actually traces every last line of thought, every contradiction, every tangent from a given point. It's inherently interesting not because of the subject matter—Barth could be declaiming on the right way to braise a pork roast as easily as he could on the right way to head up a church—but because of the way Barth presents his arguments. (There is evidence of this, actually. My favorite of Barth's book's is a brief monograph he wrote on the music of Mozart, and it is fascinating for the exact same reasons.) I realize that Barth is vertical-market, but even if you're not in the seminary, he's worth reading just to examine the structure of his logic (and, if you're so inclined, in a “know thy enemy” sort of way). ****
We are almost 1,250 pages into the monstrosity known as Church Dogmatics before Karl Barth actually addresses the topic of dogmatics. It's frustrating, but it's also kind of brilliant, because after 1,250 pages of setup, assuming you've lasted that far, you're really wondering when Barth is going to get down to brass tacks. Rest assured, he does.
It took me thirteen months, on and off, to bull my way through the nine-hundred-odd pages of the second half of the first volume of Church Dogmatics (and the first two volumes, remember, are just the introduction to the larger work!). Usually I take stock after I've been struggling with a book for twelve months and decide whether or not I'm going to defenestrate it with extreme prejudice. The list of books I've been reading on and off for over a year that I don't do that with is very small (I can count them on one hand). I.ii. is one of those books; the thought of abandoning it never even entered my mind. Why? Because despite Barth being a long-winded guy (to say the least) and some clumsiness in the translation here, and despite (or perhaps because of) my not being a Christian, I find Barth's declamation on how to be a preacher fascinating. As with the first book, I.ii. is a fine history lesson in many ways, as Barth takes innumerable side-jaunts into the thoughts of other contemporary theologians of his time, relates what he's saying to current events, et al. (Like the first volume, I.ii. was written during the early to mid-1930s in Germany; World War II buffs, even those with no interest in theology, will find some very interesting asides.) Barth is also a consummate logician, as long as you're willing to buy the spiritual aspects of what he's saying. Even if you're not, it's impossible to argue with the way he constructs his logic, in part because he's one of the only logicians I've ever read who actually traces every last line of thought, every contradiction, every tangent from a given point. It's inherently interesting not because of the subject matter—Barth could be declaiming on the right way to braise a pork roast as easily as he could on the right way to head up a church—but because of the way Barth presents his arguments. (There is evidence of this, actually. My favorite of Barth's book's is a brief monograph he wrote on the music of Mozart, and it is fascinating for the exact same reasons.) I realize that Barth is vertical-market, but even if you're not in the seminary, he's worth reading just to examine the structure of his logic (and, if you're so inclined, in a “know thy enemy” sort of way). ****
February 11, 2014
This is not a full review, since I am not dealing with sections 15-18. Those are important because of his discussions of asarkos/ensarkos, but since he takes up that theme elsewhere, I won't worry about it.
I don’t think this is one of Barth’s more important contributions, but it is one on which most Evangelicals think he is “the bad guy.” It is in this volume where he more explicitly denies that the text in your hands is the revelation of the Word of God. Rather, it is a witness to that revelation. What Barth is actually doing is making use of the divine/human model of Christology and applying it to Scripture.
On other areas he explores how is model impacts dogmatics within the Church and the proper limits of Church authority. He makes an important point that is often missed by evangelicals: he is adamant to deny that the church is in any sense the custodian of God’s revelation (and keep in mind on Barth’s gloss, revelation does not necessarily equal Scripture). When churches do this (EO and Rome), they make themselves above God’s revelation and beyond any real critique. Barth’s model, by contrast, can assign a lot of authority to the church while never fearing of an abuse of infallibility claims
Barth also advocates a role for the laity perhaps more than other communions. He doesn’t develop the point, but his model could alleviate a lot of the problems associated with subjectivity in Scripture. In fact, one can even develop a robust personalism on this point. If what it means to be a “person” is an opening to the other, and if everyone is engaged in the reading and practice of Holy Scripture, then everyone’s so-called subjective interpretation is taken into the “other’s” interpretation.”
Subjectivity is only a problem when each man is an island unto himself. This is a problem for congregationalist models. For Reformed (and Anglican and Lutheran) this isn’t near a problem. I think Barth makes some valuable suggestions, but they won’t impress everyone. He talks about fear and bravery at the end of this volume. If we allow dogmatics to become a lay enterprise, and each one has to bring his interpretation for correction and critique, then there will be the fear of “I don’t have complete control.” This is perhaps why anchoretic communities love to rail on the “subjectivity” of sola scriptura. It is scary, but it is also how we grow.
§19, chapter 1 deals with Scripture as a witness to God’s revelation. Resisting the urge to attack Barth because he “doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God,” let’s actually see what he is saying and what it means for our own situation. A witness to a thing is not the same thing as the thing (and if anyone maintains it is, he or she will have to explain precisely why transubstantiation is wrong). Further if we collapse the sign into the thing signified, is this not a movement towards nominalism? The sign is pointing beyond itself to the “real.” If we remove the “sign,” how can we have access to the real? We are then saying that the “sign” is merely a “name” for the thing signified.
Before people fear too much, Richard Muller, while perhaps not necessarily endorsing this view, does allude to several Reformed scholastics who said something similar.
For whatever demerits Barth’s project may have, one cannot help but notice Augustinian themes. If you attack Barth, then you must continue and attack Augustine.
Chapter 2: Canon
Barth gives an unusually careful discussion on the nature of canonization. Surprisingly, given his anti-Roman polemic throughout this series, he faults the position of Luther and Calvin and gives more weight to the role of the church. However, this can only work when the Church submits to the same revelation.
Towards the end of chapter two he gets into why he doesn’t believe Scripture should be considered “inerrant.” I can’t follow him at this point, though Evangelicals really haven’t reflected hard enough on his concerns. We believe the Word of God is self-attesting. If we leave the discussion of “self-attesting” in the arena of the Triune God, well and good. Because then self-attestation is truly a triune act, and if you deny it then you deny God. If we maintain, however, so Barth reasons, that self-attestation is an act of the text of Scripture, then we open ourselves to lots of devastating criticisms by Anchorite traditions.
Barth tries to play the “Calvin vs. Calvinists” card. Historically, such a claim is simply false. However, even Richard Muller admits that the epistemology of later 17th century scholastics was such that they really couldn’t avoid the later criticisms of the Enlightenment.
We should be all means reject Barth’s conclusions--at least, if we want to stay in good position in conservative, American churches--but be forewarned that Barth’s position can avoid all the pitfalls facing Evangelicals in their debates with anchorites. The downside, though, is that it is particularly difficult on Barth’s gloss to say, “Thus saith the Lord.” To Barth’s credit he emphasizes the preaching of the word. However, at this point in Church Dogmatics Barth is not clear on how his view of the Bible can be authoritative for the church.
In §20 chapter 1 Barth gives a very thorough discussion of tradition and authority and its development in Roman Catholic history (warning: this lasts for about ten small-font pages). In the previous section I critique Barth for not giving any reason why one can take his position and say, “Thus saith the Lord” (which Barth admirably wants to do). He does work out some of the weaknesses and reduces some of the subjectivity in Evangelicalism by anchoring the Bible in the Church. However, he avoids leading us back into Anchoretic slavery by saying that the Church, like Holy Scripture, is a witness to God’s revelation. Anchoretic communities make it an aspect of God’s revelation (and hence, above the ability of being critiqued). This doesn’t alleviate all of the problems, but it is a better start.
I don’t think this is one of Barth’s more important contributions, but it is one on which most Evangelicals think he is “the bad guy.” It is in this volume where he more explicitly denies that the text in your hands is the revelation of the Word of God. Rather, it is a witness to that revelation. What Barth is actually doing is making use of the divine/human model of Christology and applying it to Scripture.
On other areas he explores how is model impacts dogmatics within the Church and the proper limits of Church authority. He makes an important point that is often missed by evangelicals: he is adamant to deny that the church is in any sense the custodian of God’s revelation (and keep in mind on Barth’s gloss, revelation does not necessarily equal Scripture). When churches do this (EO and Rome), they make themselves above God’s revelation and beyond any real critique. Barth’s model, by contrast, can assign a lot of authority to the church while never fearing of an abuse of infallibility claims
Barth also advocates a role for the laity perhaps more than other communions. He doesn’t develop the point, but his model could alleviate a lot of the problems associated with subjectivity in Scripture. In fact, one can even develop a robust personalism on this point. If what it means to be a “person” is an opening to the other, and if everyone is engaged in the reading and practice of Holy Scripture, then everyone’s so-called subjective interpretation is taken into the “other’s” interpretation.”
Subjectivity is only a problem when each man is an island unto himself. This is a problem for congregationalist models. For Reformed (and Anglican and Lutheran) this isn’t near a problem. I think Barth makes some valuable suggestions, but they won’t impress everyone. He talks about fear and bravery at the end of this volume. If we allow dogmatics to become a lay enterprise, and each one has to bring his interpretation for correction and critique, then there will be the fear of “I don’t have complete control.” This is perhaps why anchoretic communities love to rail on the “subjectivity” of sola scriptura. It is scary, but it is also how we grow.
§19, chapter 1 deals with Scripture as a witness to God’s revelation. Resisting the urge to attack Barth because he “doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God,” let’s actually see what he is saying and what it means for our own situation. A witness to a thing is not the same thing as the thing (and if anyone maintains it is, he or she will have to explain precisely why transubstantiation is wrong). Further if we collapse the sign into the thing signified, is this not a movement towards nominalism? The sign is pointing beyond itself to the “real.” If we remove the “sign,” how can we have access to the real? We are then saying that the “sign” is merely a “name” for the thing signified.
Before people fear too much, Richard Muller, while perhaps not necessarily endorsing this view, does allude to several Reformed scholastics who said something similar.
For whatever demerits Barth’s project may have, one cannot help but notice Augustinian themes. If you attack Barth, then you must continue and attack Augustine.
Chapter 2: Canon
Barth gives an unusually careful discussion on the nature of canonization. Surprisingly, given his anti-Roman polemic throughout this series, he faults the position of Luther and Calvin and gives more weight to the role of the church. However, this can only work when the Church submits to the same revelation.
Towards the end of chapter two he gets into why he doesn’t believe Scripture should be considered “inerrant.” I can’t follow him at this point, though Evangelicals really haven’t reflected hard enough on his concerns. We believe the Word of God is self-attesting. If we leave the discussion of “self-attesting” in the arena of the Triune God, well and good. Because then self-attestation is truly a triune act, and if you deny it then you deny God. If we maintain, however, so Barth reasons, that self-attestation is an act of the text of Scripture, then we open ourselves to lots of devastating criticisms by Anchorite traditions.
Barth tries to play the “Calvin vs. Calvinists” card. Historically, such a claim is simply false. However, even Richard Muller admits that the epistemology of later 17th century scholastics was such that they really couldn’t avoid the later criticisms of the Enlightenment.
We should be all means reject Barth’s conclusions--at least, if we want to stay in good position in conservative, American churches--but be forewarned that Barth’s position can avoid all the pitfalls facing Evangelicals in their debates with anchorites. The downside, though, is that it is particularly difficult on Barth’s gloss to say, “Thus saith the Lord.” To Barth’s credit he emphasizes the preaching of the word. However, at this point in Church Dogmatics Barth is not clear on how his view of the Bible can be authoritative for the church.
In §20 chapter 1 Barth gives a very thorough discussion of tradition and authority and its development in Roman Catholic history (warning: this lasts for about ten small-font pages). In the previous section I critique Barth for not giving any reason why one can take his position and say, “Thus saith the Lord” (which Barth admirably wants to do). He does work out some of the weaknesses and reduces some of the subjectivity in Evangelicalism by anchoring the Bible in the Church. However, he avoids leading us back into Anchoretic slavery by saying that the Church, like Holy Scripture, is a witness to God’s revelation. Anchoretic communities make it an aspect of God’s revelation (and hence, above the ability of being critiqued). This doesn’t alleviate all of the problems, but it is a better start.
August 2, 2018
Hard to sum this one up. I know that reading five pages a day is not the ideal way to take in a book like this (or the rest of the Church Dogmatics, as is my intention). I am getting a lot out of it, though, and am continuously amazed at Barth's perspective and approach, given his historical context. A lot I disagree with, of course, but so much that does seem to coincide with my own tradition's approach, too. And learning more about both sides of Barth's thought has been and will continue to be helpful as I participate in discussions of pre-modern, modern, and post-modern Christianity, in addition to Eastern and Western Christianity.
December 23, 2025
Even Homer nods. I/2 has some fantastic historical and dogmatic set pieces (including the [in]famous 20-page excursus on tradition). It is hard to shake the sense that maybe, just maybe, it could have been closer to the 530pp of I/1. But when Barth is right in these pages, he is right. An extremely worthwhile read.
July 13, 2017
Reading Barth is like running a marathon. Sometimes it just feels good to finish. But it always changes your life.
abandonned
July 8, 2012I found this one too difficult as well.
June 15, 2014
Magisterial.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews