Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis

by Keith L. Johnson

A fascinating new study challenging the classical view of Karl Barth's rejection of the Roman Catholic understanding of "analogia entis. "

Genres: Theology

256 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 9, 2010

About the author

Keith L. Johnson (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) is Associate Professor of Theology at Wheaton College, IL.

Reviews

[Glenn Wishnew III · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. J averages 1.5 italicized words per sentence. And I freaking love it!

[Ross Von Hausen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Johnson does a wonderful job laying out the various positions and arguing his point. His work goes in depth, but somehow avoids becoming tedious or cumbersome. And, while such a throughout examination of Barth's criticism of the analogia entis and preference for an analogia fidei is very few people's cup of tea, Johnson is accessible enough that any layman could understand if they so wished.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

I won't lie - this was a slog. Granted, a lucidly argued and meticulously researched slog...but if one is not terribly interested in Barthian debates, this would be better left on the shelf.

[Matthew Stanley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible book from an incredible professor. Dr. Johnson is one of the most godly and intelligent professors I have ever met. After reading this book, I couldn't be more excited to be taking his 'Theology of Karl Barth' class next semester. In his book, Dr. Johnson argues that Karl Barth did not misunderstand Erich Przywara's Analogia Entis, and that he rejected Przywara's Analogia Entis precisely because the doctrine represents a battleground of the most fundamental differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. Particularly, Johnson brings to the forefront Barth's reliance on Luther's doctrines of sola gratia and simul iustus et peccator. At stake in the discussion of the Analogia Entis is, for Barth, the doctrine of God, of creation, of Christ, of election, and ultimately, the Gospel itself. Johnson leads us through the material masterfully, and he shows us how Barth's thoughts grew and developed over time. Further, contra von Balthasar, Dr. Johnson argues that Barth never incorporated the Analogia Entis into his thought, at least as Catholicism conceived of it. Dr. Johnson exposes von Balthasar's interpretive gymnastics as a poor and unfaithful reading of Barth. Then, he explains Barth's articulation of his Analogia Entis, which Barth prefers to call the Analogia Relationis. Barth may have called a ceasefire against the Analogia Entis later in his life, but he did so not because he had misunderstood Przywara, but because he was encouraged that Roman Catholic theologians had actually listened to his critiques and had done significant work on the doctrine in response to him.