The Christian Life: Church Dogmatics IV, 4 Lecture Fragments

Church Dogmatics #4.4

by Karl Barth

English, German (translation)

Genres: Theology, Ecclesiology

310 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1930

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

[Ben De Bono · Rating 5 out of 5]

After 6 months of reading I come to the end of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics. Volume 4.4 stands out as being singularly unique in the series. Not only is it by far the shortest of the series (at just a few pages over 200 it's not even close) but it also, in many ways, isn't even a complete volume. Barth states in the introduction that what exists in 4.4 is really a fragment of what he intended. During the writing his health deteriorated to the point where he was unable to continue and, sadly, he passed shortly after its publication. As such, the numbering system Barth uses throughout the series to denote chapters and sections ends with 4.3.2 and 4.4 exists apart from the rest of the series, seeming to be more of a snippet of what might have been rather than Barth's intended conclusion to the Doctrine of Reconciliation.

Although it's unfortunate that Barth never finished the series, the fragmentary nature of 4.4 allows Barth to focus singularly on one topic - baptism. As a result this volume stands out as being among the most accessible and digestible in the series.

Barth draws a clear distinction between Baptism of the Holy Spirit and water Baptism, spending the majority of the book discussing the latter. As should be expected by this point in the series, Barth's view on the topic is nuanced and complex. I was especially intrigued by this topic due to the fact that my own views of baptism have changed quite drastically over the last year and a half.

At a high (and overly simplistic level) Barth's view of baptism can be summarized as follows:

1. Baptism ought to be considered an ordinance rather than a sacrament. It is not a means of grace
2. It follows from this that baptism is a human action and not a divine one. Barth rejects any sense of mystery or inexplicablity in the action of baptism.
3. However, that does not make baptism optional. It is divinely commanded and therefore a requirement for all Christians.
4. Baptism is ecclesiological in nature, signifying the believer's entrance into the community.
5. Baptism, being an act of obedience, ought to be a free choice, thus invalidating infant baptism, which Barth characterizes as an ancient ecclesiological error.

With this position, Barth is obviously breaking quite sharply with his own tradition and the majority of church history. Some of the most fascinating parts in his discussion are when he demonstrates the inconsistencies present in the Reformers' views on baptism, particularly infant baptism.

The reason this discussion resonated with me on such a personal level is that I too find myself breaking with my tradition on the issue of baptism. The difference is that my split has come in the opposite direction from Barth's. For my entire life I have exclusively attended Baptist and Evangelical churches. Although Barth's view wouldn't line up perfectly with the one found in those circles, on the major points he would largely agree. Baptism is viewed as an ordinance not a sacrament and despite going to church nearly every week for my entire life, I don't believe I've ever witnessed an infant baptism.

However, as I mentioned, my own views have now begun to depart quite sharply from my own tradition. I've come to believe that baptism is a sacrament, not an ordinance, and that infant baptism is biblical and ought to be practiced. As such, reading Barth, I felt like I was watching someone develop their theology of baptism in much the same way I have with the only difference is that we are moving in opposite direction.

I admired Barth's argument a great deal but I found a few issues in it.

1. Barth is correct to draw a distinction between Baptism of the Holy Spirit and water Baptism but he goes to far in dividing the two. By reducing water Baptism to a merely human aspect, he misses the way that God makes himself present within the human action. I believe that in water Baptism we see the divine working through the human action. Barth is correct that in a technical sense, water Baptism is human action, but incorrect to believe that the divine action is fully absent from that human action.

2. I strongly agree with Barth on the ecclesiological nature of baptism (point 4 in my above summary), which makes his rejection of infant baptism extremely puzzling to me. If baptism's purpose is ecclesiological rather than salvific, then by rejecting infant baptism aren't we denying children the ecclesiological place they deserve? Although there were many factors that played into my own transition on this issue, this point, more than any others, is what changed me from someone who found infant baptism foreign, misguided and unbiblical to someone who sees it as an essential Christian practice.

3. It is also puzzling to me that in his exegetical discussion of the proofs for infant baptism, Barth leaves out 1 Corinthians 10:2. In my estimation this is the most important text for establishing the ecclesiological nature of baptism and seeing the place for children within the act. It is also the closest biblical example to an explicit statement of children being included in the act of baptism. Although Barth does touch on this text at other points in his discussion, he leaves it out of his discussion of infant baptism - a crucial error in his development of the doctrine.


Barth's discussion of baptism in this volume is complex, stimulating and, despite my objections, biblically argued. As with everything in this series, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with Barth, his work will challenge and stretch you as you think deeper on the issues he raises and reconsider key biblical texts. This volume contains some of my strongest disagreements with Barth, but I still found it an incredible read and essential study for anyone looking to learn more about baptism.

With that, I come to the end of one of the greatest theological works of all time - Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics. Reading it has been a fascinating experience and one that, despite its immense length, I am sure to repeat.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is Karl Barth’s treatment of the ordinance of baptism. Like other volumes in this series, it shares both Barth’s strengths and weaknesses. It should be noted that this only a fragment of what appeared to be a larger work-in-progress. Still, it seems to contain the mature essence of Barth’s thought.

Barth begins on a promising note: he grounds his theology of baptism on the decisive act of Jesus Christ in ushering in the new creation (11). Readers of Oliver O’Donovan will note similar themes. This means that Jesus is the origin and the beginning of the Christian life. There are echoes of eschatology here: Jesus’s resurrection discloses, if only briefly, the coming eschaton of the Regeneration (Mt. 19:28).

From this we see that Jesus is the True Israelite. In his baptism Jesus takes upon himself, not only the identity of Israel, but also the coming judgment (Barth 56). This, of course, is heavy with themes of mediation (and as long as Barth stays on these topics, he cannot help but triumph). There are classic states that Jesus is the Elected Israelite and Eschatological David (61).

As is often the case with Barth, his historical critiques are always insightful. He neatly outlines the Reformed view of baptism: baptism does not cause salvation, but mediates its cognitio and certitudo (105). He then moves to a stunning critique of hyper-sacramentalist traditions. At no point in the New Testament is mysterion used for baptism or the supper. It is an event of God’s positive will in space and time (108). This is a place where Calvin can be legitimately criticized: he failed to break with the medieval tradition on the use of sacramentum, something Zwingli was much more successful at doing.

More pointedly, he notes that those who say the “water” saves, must account for the following: 1) they must make the dia loutro in Titus 3:5 carry the whole weight of justifying action; 2) they must show that the aim of the Savior’s appearing is to illustrate that men are being baptized (LOL!); 3) they must give to the term paliggennesias a meaning quite devoid from Matthew 19:28.

So, do we agree with Barth? Sadly, from here on we must part ways. Not surprisingly, given his commitment to crisis-theology and existentialism, Barth champions believer’s-only baptism. For him baptism is the decision of decisions, something an infant cannot make. However, Barth is too keen a reader of Calvin to ignore the counters to his position. He then proceeds to critique the doctrine of infant baptism (and here he rehashes the standard baptist critiques.

What do we say in response? I grant to him that Calvin’s treatment is often less than adequate. Following Oliver O’Donovan I agree that the church is an eschatological society which is joined by leaving other societies. However, adult baptism risks confusing the particular decision to be baptised with the ultimate decision that baptism represents (O’Donovan 178). Infant baptism, by contrast, does not confuse my decision to be baptised with the eschatological decision of following Christ.

O’Donovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE THIRTEENTH VOLUME (OF 14) OF THE SWISS THEOLOGIAN’S MASTERWORK

Karl Barth (1886-1968) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, who was (arguably) the greatest Protestant theologian of the twentieth century. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 226-page hardcover edition.]

He wrote in the Preface of this 1967 book, “How often in the last years I have been asked about the non-appearance of the remaining parts of the ‘Church Dogmatics’ which had been announced! As things are, in spite of its not inconsiderable bulk, the work is undoubtedly an opus imperfectum… the simple fact [is] that I have gradually begun to lose the physical energy and mental drive necessary to continue and complete the work which I had started. It should be remembered that with I began work… I was forty-five years of age… When I had finished IV, 3, the forty-five had become seventy-three. There is quite a difference.”

He observes, “Not it would obviously be strange if Christian baptism were different from that of John, which Jesus sought and received like all the rest, and after which He was manifested, acknowledged and confirmed from heaven to be the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost and the Son of God. It would be strange if Christian baptism were plainly better and stronger than that of Jesus in the sense that it had its goal somehow within itself, in the faith of the community… Christian baptism, like John’s, is in no sense a self-sufficient act which is in some way divinely fulfilled or self-fulfilling within itself. Its goal does not lie in its administration… its truly divine goal…. lies… beyond the participants and their action and means of action… Baptism with water is a promise entrusted to and enjoined upon the community and those whom it baptizes.” (Ch. 2; pg. 70-71)

He explains, “After Pentecost Christian baptism… is not a collective act but a personal one. Now for the first time and quite unequivocally, as distinct from the initiatory rites of contemporary Judaism and paganism, baptism… is a public declaration on the part of the baptized that they stand in a personal relation to the Lord of the Christian community as the only source and cause of salvation. Baptism is now their public acknowledgement of a commitment to this personal relation to Him, in short, their baptism in His name.” (Pg. 83)

He points out, however, that “a clarification of the concept mystery or sacrament is needed. The decisive point may be made succinctly in a single statement. The New Testament does not use this concept to denote baptism.” (Pg. 108)

In his discussion of infant baptism, he notes, “There is a genuine doctrine of infant baptism only from the time of the Reformation. For it was only then that there was any serious questioning or disputing of what had become the venerable institution of infant baptism… The arguments which were discovered and advanced… are later explanations, reasons and vindications. They did not grow out of any inner necessity… They are presented because the critics of infant baptism exert an outside pressure which it is necessary to ward off.” (Pg. 166-167)

He argues, “We are surely not asking too much if … we postulate that a doctrine of infant baptism ought to give evidence of its … theological credibility … It ought to be a visible part of the very foundations of the doctrine of baptism and of Christian doctrine in general.” (Pg. 169) Later, he states, “the personal faith of the candidate is indispensable to baptism. He is not asked whether his faith is perfect. But he is asked concerning his faith, however feeble. If he does not believe, if only others believe, how can that which begins be his own Christian life which he himself, surrounded, supported and sustained by the faith of others, must live as the life of his own personal faith.” (Pg. 186)

He (perhaps) concludes, “Enough of this tiresome matter! Theology can and should do no more than advise the Church… In this matter of infant baptism, our advice has not been sought, and there is only the faintest hope that it will be heeded… Theology cannot say to the Church that if it continues on this way it is acting in obedience and may thus have a good conscience. It cannot share with the Church the responsibility which the Church has taken on itself by introducing this practice, and which it constantly takes on itself by maintaining it. This practice is profoundly irregular… even theology has not yet realized by a long way that infant baptism is an ancient ecclesiastical error…” (Pg. 194)

Barth’s massive work (more 8,000 pages---much of it in small type!) was unfinished at his death. (He planned for Eschatology to be his final topic.) The 14th volume is just an Index of topics, prepared after Barth’s death. But the Dogmatics remains a magnificent edifice, and for anyone seriously studying Christian theology, this series—while requiring a substantial investment of time—is virtually “must reading.”

[Henry Sturcke · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is ironic that after thirty-five years and thirteen volumes spanning 9300 pages, Swiss theologian Karl Barth should put down his pen and leave off work on his Kirchliche Dogmatik with a volume dealing with the first step of the Christian life, baptism. It reminds us that theology, by its nature, never reaches the end of its quest to understand God.
This volume has an unusual structure. Barth devotes the first 42 pages to baptism with the holy spirit, then the remaining 190 pages to baptism with water. This, although for him, the baptism with the holy spirit (a term Barth equates with divine calling) is essential for making a water baptism effective, whereas water baptism, though also indispensable, is secondary. The first is the work of God, the second the work of man.
Barth organizes his discussion of water baptism into three aspects: source, goal, and meaning, answering each Christocentricly. Rather than locating the command to baptize in the words of the resurrected Christ to his disciples at the end of Matthew’s gospel, Barth finds that Jesus’ submission to the baptism of John is the source of our practice. That the goal is Jesus is expressed in the language used when baptism is performed “in” the name of Jesus.
Barth interrupts his discussion of the third aspect, meaning, with what is most famous about this volume: a rejection of the practice of infant baptism. In taking this position, Barth reversed his own earlier teaching on the subject and expressed agreement with a book his son Markus had written that concluded that the practice had no New Testament support.
Barth does a good job of showing the weaknesses of the exegetical and dogmatic arguments for infant baptism and is certainly right that the central issue for the Reformers was the preservation of the post-Constantinian idea that equated the church and society.
So is Barth right to reject the practice? Only if he is right in his insistence that the baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to the divine calling, which allows us the freedom to choose to seek baptism.
Even when one disagrees with Barth, it is stimulating to engage with his arguments. This is the payoff for persevering through his prolix writing style, which often seems to make a point by recasting the same idea in as many as five different formulations. He’s one of the last masters writing in a German that takes the multi-claused architectonic miracle of an elaborate Latin period as its model for scholarly prose. It is prose marvelously suited to the subtle and complex course of Barth’s thought, which often seems to be engaged in a dialectic with itself. Yet it’s a relief that most no longer write like this.

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read portions for Barth Church Dogmatics class here in Edinburgh--it will take years to read this all properly. Agree or disagree, this stuff is mind-blowing on almost every page.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enigmatic, difficult, frustrating, encouraging, inspiring, and paradigm shifting - a good read. I thank God for Karl Barth.

[Elisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

This seems to be the only thing I ever read.