What do you think?
Rate this book
Church Dogmatics (Study Edition) #2
Karl Barth: Die Kirchliche Dogmatik. Studienausgabe: Band 2: I.1 8-12: Die Offenbarung Gottes I
Karl Barth (1886-1968) studierte Theologie in Bern, Berlin, Tubingen, Marburg und war von 1909 bis 1921 Pfarrer in Genf und Safenwil. Mit seiner Auslegung des Romerbriefes (1919, 1922) begann eine neue Epoche der evangelischen Theologie. Dieses radikale Buch trug ihm einen Ruf als Honorarprofessor nach Gottingen ein, spater wurde er Ordinarius in Munster und Bonn. Er war Mitherausgeber von Zwischen den Zeiten (1923-1933), der Zeitschrift der Dialektischen Theologie. Karl Barth war der Autor der Barmer Theologischen Erklarung und Kopf des Widerstands gegen die Gleichschaltung der Kirchen durch den Nationalsozialismus. 1935 wurde Barth von der Bonner Universitat wegen Verweigerung des bedingungslosen Fuhrereids entlassen. Er bekam sofort eine Professur in Basel, blieb aber mit der Bekennenden Kirche in enger Verbindung. Sein Hauptwerk, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, ist die bedeutendste systematisch-theologische Leistung des 20. Jahrhunderts.
- GenresTheology
236 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1987
4 people are currently reading
17 people want to read
About the author
Karl Barth
457 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 16, 2020
Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, even when one of his two-volume sets is broken into two parts, is not something to be perused in a few days. Nor does the volume contain superfluous citations in Latin and Greek from the church fathers (and reformers) that one can blithely skip over. Fortunately, for semi-lazy readers such as myself (sometimes I feel like translating and sometimes I don’t), the current study editions in paperback have the Greek and Latin quotations in footnote form at the bottom of each respective page. Still, I spent almost three months reading this half-volume of a two-volume section of an imposing multi-volume set. Completing the full set is on my “bucket list,” but I think it’s going to be a photo (or perhaps, by that time, a holographic) finish.
The following observations apply to Church Dogmatics: 1.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God: Part 2 in the “Study Edition” from T & T Clark. This volume equates to the major sections 8-12 in the traditional 1.1 volume, but the page numbers are specific to this divided edtion. Barth’s theology is very much focused on “Revelation,” neither general (or natural) revelation nor historical revelation, though he doesn’t entirely ignore those schools or their proponents; Barth simply starts with “Revelation” in the sense that we cannot know without God’s initiative.
In this portion of the volume, Barth emphasizes God as Revealer, Revealed, and Revealing in trinitarian functionality. As such, he understands the Trinity as: “…the proposition that He whom the Christian Church calls God and proclaims as God, the God who has revealed Himself according to the witness of Scripture, is the same in unimpaired unity and also the same thrice in different ways in unimpaired distinction.” (p. 13) To clarify, Barth notes the scriptural references to the “Spirit of the Father” and “Spirit of the Son,” “…therefore the same one God, but the same one God in this way too, namely, in this unity, indeed, this self-disclosing unity disclosing itself to men.” (p. 37) Again, speaking of the Opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa (The works of the Trinity [directed] outward are indivisible), he writes: “With Paul and Luther we can see in Christ the revelation of God’s righteousness, but obviously we then have to regard the Father and Spirit as well in the same way. We can find in the Spirit the epitome of the divine life, but this necessarily means that we understand the same life as the life of the Father and the Son.” (p. 69)
I very much liked what Barth had to say about the inadequacy of worldly/creaturely analogues for the Trinity. Regarding such analogues as the source, stream and lake of the fathers, Barth observes: “…not that they tried to explain the Trinity by the world but on the contrary that they tried to explain the world by the Trinity in order to be able to speak about the Trinity in this world.” (p. 46) Barth uses a cautiously held idea of perichoresis to suggest the Trinity. “This states that the divine modes of being mutually condition and permeate one another so completely that one is always in the other two and the other two in the one.” (p. 77)
Barth recognizes that the church fathers had to respond to an assault from two fronts: Docetism, which focused so much on the divine essence that Jesus as the Christ becomes mere symbol of the divine (p. 110-111) and Ebionite Christology, which focuses so much on the historical humanity of Jesus as the Christ that He only becomes divine in an apotheosis for the people around Him (p. 110). Neither is adequate, as Barth argues: “…Christ reveals His Father. But this Father of His is God. He who reveals Him, then, reveals God. But who can reveal God except God Himself? Neither a man that has been raised up nor an idea that has come down can do it.” (p. 113)
As one might expect, Barth uses a similar argument with the Holy Spirit. He cites three (3) groups of statements about the Holy Spirit in the New Testament: 1) He allows believers to have personal participation in revelation (p. 162); 2) He provides guidance and instruction impossible for oneself (p. 163); and 3) He is the only One who can inspire the witness to the Revelation and power to actualize it (pp. 164-165). I liked his observation on the Johannine use of Paraclete for the Holy Spirit and Paul’s use of the underlying verb, paraclesis. “This word for which there is no real equivalent, denotes the combination of the admonition and comfort which God causes His people to experience, …” (p. 163)
Barth takes the reader on a tour of fathers and reformers alike, but toward the end of each exposition, one finds simple jewels. Speaking of believers as the Redeemed, he wants to make sure that readers understand that, “This being of ours is thus enclosed in the act of God.” He goes further in the same discussion to say, “To have the Holy Spirit is to let God rather than our having God be our confidence.” (p. 172, my emphasis) Or again, as he is coming to a conclusion: “The Holy Spirit, in distinction from all created spirits, is the Spirit who is and remains and always becomes anew transcendent over man even when immanent in him.” (p. 200)
Although it took me months to read at a leisurely pace, this volume reminds me of why this mid-20th century theologian is still read, quoted, and critiqued. The writing still carries an underlying profundity which Barth, like St. Augustine, prays will stick with us when it clarifies God’s purposes and flit away when it does not (p. 202).
The following observations apply to Church Dogmatics: 1.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God: Part 2 in the “Study Edition” from T & T Clark. This volume equates to the major sections 8-12 in the traditional 1.1 volume, but the page numbers are specific to this divided edtion. Barth’s theology is very much focused on “Revelation,” neither general (or natural) revelation nor historical revelation, though he doesn’t entirely ignore those schools or their proponents; Barth simply starts with “Revelation” in the sense that we cannot know without God’s initiative.
In this portion of the volume, Barth emphasizes God as Revealer, Revealed, and Revealing in trinitarian functionality. As such, he understands the Trinity as: “…the proposition that He whom the Christian Church calls God and proclaims as God, the God who has revealed Himself according to the witness of Scripture, is the same in unimpaired unity and also the same thrice in different ways in unimpaired distinction.” (p. 13) To clarify, Barth notes the scriptural references to the “Spirit of the Father” and “Spirit of the Son,” “…therefore the same one God, but the same one God in this way too, namely, in this unity, indeed, this self-disclosing unity disclosing itself to men.” (p. 37) Again, speaking of the Opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa (The works of the Trinity [directed] outward are indivisible), he writes: “With Paul and Luther we can see in Christ the revelation of God’s righteousness, but obviously we then have to regard the Father and Spirit as well in the same way. We can find in the Spirit the epitome of the divine life, but this necessarily means that we understand the same life as the life of the Father and the Son.” (p. 69)
I very much liked what Barth had to say about the inadequacy of worldly/creaturely analogues for the Trinity. Regarding such analogues as the source, stream and lake of the fathers, Barth observes: “…not that they tried to explain the Trinity by the world but on the contrary that they tried to explain the world by the Trinity in order to be able to speak about the Trinity in this world.” (p. 46) Barth uses a cautiously held idea of perichoresis to suggest the Trinity. “This states that the divine modes of being mutually condition and permeate one another so completely that one is always in the other two and the other two in the one.” (p. 77)
Barth recognizes that the church fathers had to respond to an assault from two fronts: Docetism, which focused so much on the divine essence that Jesus as the Christ becomes mere symbol of the divine (p. 110-111) and Ebionite Christology, which focuses so much on the historical humanity of Jesus as the Christ that He only becomes divine in an apotheosis for the people around Him (p. 110). Neither is adequate, as Barth argues: “…Christ reveals His Father. But this Father of His is God. He who reveals Him, then, reveals God. But who can reveal God except God Himself? Neither a man that has been raised up nor an idea that has come down can do it.” (p. 113)
As one might expect, Barth uses a similar argument with the Holy Spirit. He cites three (3) groups of statements about the Holy Spirit in the New Testament: 1) He allows believers to have personal participation in revelation (p. 162); 2) He provides guidance and instruction impossible for oneself (p. 163); and 3) He is the only One who can inspire the witness to the Revelation and power to actualize it (pp. 164-165). I liked his observation on the Johannine use of Paraclete for the Holy Spirit and Paul’s use of the underlying verb, paraclesis. “This word for which there is no real equivalent, denotes the combination of the admonition and comfort which God causes His people to experience, …” (p. 163)
Barth takes the reader on a tour of fathers and reformers alike, but toward the end of each exposition, one finds simple jewels. Speaking of believers as the Redeemed, he wants to make sure that readers understand that, “This being of ours is thus enclosed in the act of God.” He goes further in the same discussion to say, “To have the Holy Spirit is to let God rather than our having God be our confidence.” (p. 172, my emphasis) Or again, as he is coming to a conclusion: “The Holy Spirit, in distinction from all created spirits, is the Spirit who is and remains and always becomes anew transcendent over man even when immanent in him.” (p. 200)
Although it took me months to read at a leisurely pace, this volume reminds me of why this mid-20th century theologian is still read, quoted, and critiqued. The writing still carries an underlying profundity which Barth, like St. Augustine, prays will stick with us when it clarifies God’s purposes and flit away when it does not (p. 202).
November 17, 2024
Karl is the type of the theologian that if you agree with him 30% coming in, you'll agree with him 80% coming out. In this discussion on the Trinity, he somehow proposes things that feel scandalous to pious thought and yet complete in line with orthodox thought at the same time. From his rejection of natural theology to analogize the Trinity (think Augustine's memory, understanding, and will) to the argument that we should not use "persons" to describe the Triune persons but instead that we should say that God exists in "three modes of being" he will knock your socks off. Of course, for the evangelical crowd, Barth's insistence that we are doing church dogmatics and not just reading off the pages of Scripture will be the hardest pill to swallow. Barth takes on the claim that the Scriptures never call the Son nor the Spirit God... and agrees. Yet he also affirms that the centuries of reflection and exegesis done by the Church is correct. "The dogma as such is not found in the Biblical texts. The dogma is an interpretation." and "The dogma itself, then, is not in Scripture; it is exegesis of Scripture".
As God is in Himself Father from all eternity, He begets Himself as the Son from all eternity. As He is the Son from all eternity, He is begotten of Himself as the Father from all eternity. In this eternal begetting of Himself and being begotten of Himself, He posits Himself a third time as the Holy Spirit, i.e., as the love which unites Him in Himself... The Son is the first in God and the Spirit is the second in God, that is, as God is the Father of the Son, and, as Father, begets the Son, He also brings forth the Spirit and therefore the negation of isolation, the law and the reality of love.
March 13, 2019
There is a lot of needed (I assume) heavy lifting in the middle of this book. Exploration, explanation, and refuted talk around the Trinity. It can get tedious and difficult to digest, but the way the process of reading it exhausts and overwhelms, makes sense and doesn't, actually feels like fitting for the subject matter. And it makes the last 40 odd pages feel like an encounter with empty tomb. In those pages, I read some of the most profound reflections on judgement, grace, and God's work of redemption. Grateful.
Read
November 4, 2010Fascinating book. One cannot grapple with the effects of liberalism in regards to the Scripture without having read Barth. Intellectual pursuit requires deep inquiry and careful thought. Barth will cause the student to pursue both.
April 10, 2017
I must say that I had been misinformed about Karl Barth during my early Bible college days. I had been given the impression that Karl Barth had a weak view of Scripture and should be avoided. To the contrary, I have found him to have a profoundly deep respect for the Holy Scriptures. For example, he emphatically states that all theology must be judged "not with a norm of human truth or human value . . . , nor with a standard of divine truth already known and proclaimed by the Church . . . , but with the revelation attested in Holy Scripture." Too often, even the most theologically conservative groups do exactly what Barth says we must not do; they force the Scriptures though the sieve of our own preconceived theological systems, rather than allowing the Scriptures speak with authority. Theology is human talk about God. The Scriptures alone are the criteria for assessing that talk and they hold the authorized testament to God's acts of self-revelation through history. My respect and admiration for this great theologian rose exponentially the further I got into this book.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews