Karl
Barth: A Unique Theologian
In
doing theology, the Bible is the only reliable source although some other
sources such as tradition and human reason can be considered as sources for
doing theology. For those who believe the authority of the Bible, other sources
will be not important as the Bible. In saying this, they do not deny the
importance of tradition and even human reason. Especially in doing modern
theology, we usually ask questions on the theologies of the past. Among these,
Karl Barth was the pioneer among other theologians, although there are some
people who argue about Karl Barth. Karl Barth asked difficult questions on the
theology of the church and scholars.
Karl
Barth’s theology is not as easy as we can mention. This means that it is
difficult to understand Karl Barth and his thinking. There are several reasons
for this. First, simply because Karl Barth wrote them in German. Second, we do
not know much about historical background and we tend to neglect the importance
of historical background of his thinking. If we neglect the historical
background of his thinking, we will misunderstand Karl Barth. This is true to
many other theologians too. Geoffrey W. Bromiley said if we want to understand
Karl Barth, we need to read and study Karl Barth for whole life.[1] This
means by reading a part of Karl Barth’s writing or historical background of his
thinking or reading secondary resources, we might make wrong conclusions about
Karl Barth and his theology. This paper talks mainly about Karl Barth’s theological
background based on secondary sources because his writings were difficult to
understand. We will also touch some key thoughts of Karl Barth but we will not
go in detail, but a summary of some points of his thoughts.
The Person and Work of
Karl Barth
According to John Webster, Barth’s life and work are
inseparable.[2]
This means that we need to read Barth’s writings in the light of his life. All
of his writings were products of his engagements in church and society. He
involved in different ministerial and vocational work in the church and outside
the church. We can also say that his writings were mostly products from his
preaching and teaching ministry.
Barth was born in Basel, Switzerland. As his father,
Fritz Barth was a teacher, the family moved to Bern to teach at a University. Fritz
Barth was not a famous theologian but Karl Barth was influenced by his father.
Under Fritz Barth, Karl Barth was trained to read Immanuel Kant.[3] Although
Bern was popular with its interest in science, Barth’s interest was much in
“poetry, drama and poetry as well as by the skirmishes with his peers.”[4] He
began his study in Bern in 1904 and he was introduced with Kant’s book, Critique of Practical Reason. His plan
to study at Marburg under Harrmann was stopped by his father and went to Berlin
for study where he learnt liberal theologians such as Harnack.[5]
Later he studied at Tubingen and at Marburg as well in 1908.[6]
Later Karl Barth studied under Adolf Schlatter. In 1906,
he read Herrmann’s “ethik” and said he really became a theologian.[7]
Herrmann was a student of Friedrich August Tholuck. Parker said, “Tholuck was a
middle of the way evangelical, a man of piety and a greater supporter of
Eastern missions; as a scholar he is chiefly memorable for his advocacy of the
theology of the Reformers and for his editions of Calvin’s Institutio and New Testament commentaries.”[8]
While he was with Thuluck, Herrmann met Ritschl. Then he became a Ritschlian.
For Ritschl, faith is objective. Faith is “based on the Revelation of God in
the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, and therefore, correspondingly, against
Schleiermacher, theology must not become a description of the movements of the
mind of the believer.”[9]
After his studies, Barth worked as an assistant editor
for the journal Christliche Welt,
along with liberal scholar Martin Rade.[10]
Then he moved to Switzerland to pastor there and this was the period where he
read Calvin’s Institute. His pastoral
work in Switzerland was really a crucial part of his life because he realized
how the liberal theology did not touch the life issues of people. Webster
writes,
“The ten years
Barth spent as a pastor were a period of intensely concentrated development,
and most accounts of his work make much of how the realities of pastoral work
which were brought home to him during this decade led to his abandonment of
theological liberalism and his adoption of a quite different set of
commitments.”[11]
As
he engaged in social and political issues in his time, he questioned the
teachings of his former teachers. Especially when the World War broke out,
Barth questioned the stand of his teachers because all of them support Kaiser.[12]
Since then, he started reading eschatological revivalist thinkers Johann and
Christoph Blumhardt as he was encouraged by his close friend Eduard Thurneysen.
Moreover, he also focused to reread the biblical writings especially Paul’s
writings.[13]
According to Thurneysen, “We decided we had to read the New Testament a little
differently from and more exactly than our teachers.”[14] They
read together the Bible without “presuppositions.”[15]
Parker said, “It is clear that what they set out to do was to listen to the
voice of the Bible without being distracted or influenced by the voice of the
Protestant tradition of the nineteenth century.”[16] The
difference from their teacher was not a different exegesis, but a different
approach. In 1916, Barth started reading on the book of Romans – “I read and
read and wrote and wrote.”[17] In
1919, his first commentary on the Book of Romans was published. It was “an
extraordinarily vivid and insistent characterization of Christianity as
eschatological and transcendent.”[18]
Reformers and scholars interpreted the Bible historically
and devotionally. Historically, the
Bible was interpreted as the object of historical research without much
personal implications. Spiritually, the
Bible is the foundation of Christianity and it must be read spiritually or
devotionally. Scholars like Schleiermacher, Ritschl and Harnack were the people
who read the Bible devotionally.
In 1915, Barth gave a lecture in Thurneysen’s church at
Leutwil and this became the beginning of his Church Dogmatics. In this lecture, he said the Bible is the record
of God working in the world. The Bible contains moral teaching and he said,
“The hero of the Bible is not the moral man but the sinner.”[19]
Although the Bible talks about the truth about true religion, the real message
of the Bible is not much about how man can find God and how to find God, but it
talks how God sees man. The Bible does not tell us how man should talk to God
but how God talks to man. It also tells us how God has found human beings
rather than how man should approach God.[20]
Barth argued that the Bible talks about God but the God
of the Bible is not the God of pietism. God is not the God of few chosen
people, who feel inner peace, and inward security. Even today, many Christians
believe that God chose us, and by receiving Jesus Christ we receive not only
eternal life but also peace in this life. We think as we live faithful to God,
we will enter into heaven. For Barth, however, God is not that simple. God
chose all human beings and he has plan for all human beings. Jesus is the
savior for all human beings including other creatures and the Holy Spirit
renews us to be members of the kingdom of God. This is what he called “new
world.”[21]
Karl Barth and Anselm
According to Parker,[22]
like other theologians, Karl Barth also wrote on Anselm. In 1931, his book
entitled, Anselm: Fides Quaerens
Intellectum (Anselm: Proof of The Existence of God in the Context of His
Theological Scheme) was published. For Parker, this book is the greatest book
of Karl Barth, but the least read of his work. It is because this book is the
most difficult work done by Barth. Even in German, it is difficult to read and
understand. However, for Parker, if one wants to understand Barth, this book is
compulsory for learners. Unless we read this book, we cannot say that we
understand Karl Barth.[23]
Bromiley also said, “Studying Anselm had also clarified his thinking and has
shown him that he needed to express himself more correctly.”[24]
Karl Barth also said, “In this book on Anselm I am
working with a vital key, not the key, to an understanding of that whole
process of thought that has impressed me more and more in my Church Dogmatics
as the only one proper to theology.”[25]
By reading Anselm, we are sure that Barth could begin his new contribution to
theology because he explained deeply and sharply basic Christian theology in
this book. In this paper, we want to cover the basic thoughts of Karl Barth
from his book on Anselm based on Parker’s writing.[26]
First, according to Parker, for Barth understanding
depends on the confession of the church. If faith is related to Christian
confession or creeds, we cannot neglect confession when we do theology. In
doing theology, Parker writes, we do not question the truth of confession but
“after-thinks.” Theologians do not simply think on confession but thinks after
the confession. It does not repeat the
confession but rethinks them in the light of the truth.
Second, Parker argues, we ask questions on the nature of
the truth when we do theology. We ask that whether the confession really brings
the truth which is identical to the truth of the Bible. However, we must be
careful because we might substitute doubt instead of faith when we ask
questions. Many times, Christians
sincerely do not ask questions because they think that asking question is not a
good sign of mature Christians. On the other hand, people ask so many questions
and they do not really have anything to believe sincerely. This means we need
to keep balance between these two things regarding the truth.
Third, we are not able to perceive God fully when we do
theology. The God that we argue in theology is not God himself because we have
our own understanding about God. At the same time, there are objects, although
they are not identical to God, which can help us understand or know God.
Fourth,
theologians do not claim that they possess the absolute truth when they do
theology. However, their statements are highlights of the truth and they invite
for criticism from the people.
Fifth,
no theology is perfect in this world but on the other hand, we cannot say that
all things are hidden in this world and revealed all only in heaven. There are
things that we can discover in this world although there are things which are
hidden from man. Like other things in the world, we need to develop theology.
Sixth,
although it is difficult to measure the validity of theology when we do
theology in different context, the only authority that we have is the Bible. If
our theology is not matched with the Bible, then we can deny it as valid
theology.
Seventh,
theology is not purely intellectual exercise but it comes from or together with
faith. Without faith, our theology will be false. Therefore, doing theology is
different from other disciplines.
Eighth,
as theology is faith seeking understanding, it leads to prayer. Prayer also
leads us to know God. Theologian’s ultimate goal is to grow in the knowledge of
God rather than growing in human reasoning power.
Therefore,
reading creeds is “thinking-after.” This means we simply do not read and
interpret the Bible or any other writings, but we read the deeper meaning of
the Bible and we think through it.[27]
Stephen D. Wigley also said, “For Barth Anselm’s approach to understanding is
based on its being a deeper reading and contemplation, a intus legere, of the object of faith itself.”[28]
Barth read Anselm that without the reality of Christian life, it is not
possible to understand our faith. Therefore, the theologians must be in
prayerful life, knowing that God revealed himself by grace alone and to give
thanks for his wonderful revelation.[29]
For Barth, Anselm received this kind of understanding because of his prayerful
life and through God’s grace.
Theology Defined
Karl Barth said, “Theology is an attempt by means of
human thought and speech to achieve scientific clarity on the question of the
church’s basis, law, and proclamation.”[30] For Barth, theology is not merely
philosophical speculations but human attempt to do exegesis on the word of God
and church tradition. He said, “In any age, theology must be strong enough and
free enough to listen quietly, attentively, and openly to the voices not merely
of the classical past but all of the past.”[31]
This means we need to listen carefully to the tradition of the church. We are
not supposed to accept easily what the past theologians taught, but to question
them in the light of the Word of God. Theologians begin their theology with the
Bible because “they hear in the Bible the witness to the free God and free
people.”[32]
Barth himself interpreted the Book of Romans for several times because he knew
that it is the actual task of a theologian.
For Barth, theology cannot begin with human interpretation or other
human understanding because they can change it easily within a short time.
Therefore, they cannot provide any starting point for theology.[33]
Karl Barth said, “It was clear that the church needs theology, for if its task
is to hear and proclaim God’s word, it cannot easily test itself too much. It
was clear as well that theology needs the church, the church that should hear
and proclaim God’s word.”[34]
According
to Gordon H. Clark, neo-orthodox theologians believe that man cannot know God
in any way. They also reject that the role of natural theology in knowing God.
Another significant thing about neo-orthodox theology is that they deny the
evangelical meaning of theology. Theology, for them, cannot reach to “timeless
truth.”[35]
Actually, the aim of all theology is to know the truth of God and to grow in
the knowledge of the truth. Of course, no theology can give perfect description
of the truth but if we know that “God justifies some men by the imputation of
Christ’s righteousness, he has grasped a timeless truth.”[36]
When we read Gordon Clark, he does not consider Karl Barth as an evangelical.
It
is true that Karl Barth is the theologian of the age. It is not easy to name
Karl Barth as evangelical or neo-orthodox. When we read his writings, he is not
fixed to any category. At the same time, he is in all categories. Pope Pius XII
said that Karl Barth was the greatest theologian after Thomas Aquinas.[37]
Another Catholic scholar also commented that Karl Barth made clear the
Protestant faith compare to Roman Catholic. Thomas F. Torrance said, “Anyone
still unfamiliar with Barth today must be judged theologically illiterate.”[38]
Karl Barth should be called as a unique theologian rather than putting him in a
single category. He is the theologian who dares to think differently from
others. Karl Barth’s thought is important not only for evangelicals, but for
all Christians including Catholics.
In
order to understand Karl Barth and his thoughts, we need to understand the
meanings of the key terms he used in his writings such as dogmatics and prolegomena.
Bromiley commented, “Both of the sections play a controlling role in the bulky
volumes that follow, and should not be skipped by the reader.”[39]
First of all, Barth explained the relationship between church, theology and
science. Theology is individually or corporately talking about God in the
church.[40]
Karl Barth said the content of theology is the truth. For him, the truth is
personal and it requires obedience.[41]
Therefore, for Barth, theology, including dogmatics, can take place in the
church and only through obedience. Without faith, people can still talk about
God, but the content will not be the truth because dogmatics is an act of
faith. Even spiritually strong theologians might do theology as merely intellectual
act. Barth commented that dogmatics requires “an act of penitence, obedience
and prayer” from the theologian because this is what he means by faith.[42]
Bromiley
said Karl Barth found “two erroneous movements: Roman Catholicism on the one
side, and Liberal Protesticism on the other. The presence of these movements
constitutes the real necessity of dogmatics prolegomena.”[43]
Therefore, prolegomena deals with the errors in the church. Bromiley argued,
“Liberal Protestantism tries to build up its prolegomena on general
anthropology and history in order to present a purely human possibility.”[44] On the other hand, Roman Catholicism believes
the foundation of theology is the Bible, church tradition and the faith of the
church. Although they have a place for God but at the end it is only man’s
action.[45]
Karl Barth argued that the past theologians tend to promote the role of human
to get into God’s presence. This means that although they talked about the
Bible, they want to focus on human words or reason in doing theology.
George
Hunsinger also writes in his book “How to Read Karl Barth” that by reading Karl
Barth, we are introduced to the history of the church. This means Karl Barth is
a window to look back into the theology and thoughts of the church of the past.
If someone understands and enjoys Karl Barth, he will surely attempt to explore
theology of the past. Karl Barth changed traditional understanding of doing
theology.
Election
According to Karl Barth, God elected us in Christ and
only through Christ we know God. Christ is the revelation of God.[46]
This means Christ himself is the revelation of God himself. There is no
question that God revealed himself in Christ rather than in nature. Karl Barth
denies that we can know God by seeing the nature or God’s created things. For
him, the God we know by nature is not the true God.[47]
Regarding election, he denied the fact that many
reformers argued about election. For the reformers, election generally means
God elected some people to eternal salvation and not elected others. For Karl
Barth, the election is for all men because God elected all men in the man
Jesus.[48]
Jesus’ humanity is crucial for Barth. God elected human beings in Jesus Christ
means God is the doer and the elected is Jesus Christ. Therefore, in Christ,
all human beings are elected. Colin Brown also mentions that “Whereas for the
Reformers and the biblical writers the election of some to salvation implied
the non-election of others, for Barth the election of the man Jesus means the
election of all mankind. Jesus is both the God who elects and the man who is
elected.”[49]
Karl Barth called the doctrine of election as “the sum of the Gospel” since it
is the heart of his theology. In order to under the doctrine of election, we
need to understand the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of God too.
The doctrine of election, for Barth, is a part of the
doctrine of God. God’s very nature is grace and this grace makes him to choose
human beings. Not because of human beings, but God himself is the God who
chooses. It seems that for Barth, God chooses us merely because of God’s
nature. Generally, we understand that God chooses us because he created us in
his image and this makes human beings valuable to God. However, for Barth, God
chooses himself and that election is in Jesus Christ. Therefore, he called the
doctrine of election as the sum of the gospel.
Jesus: The Revealed God
and Hidden God
Hunsinger said, “God’s indentity in history was
essentially the same as God’s identity in eternity, for otherwise God would not
have engaged in an act of self-revelation, that is, God’s essential identity
would not have been disclosed.”[50]
Barth strongly believed that God could be known only by God and the proofs of
God were neither necessary nor possible.[51]
Self revelation of God is necessary and it is really God’s work. If God is
really God, that God is the one who revealed himself. If God can be known by
human efforts, that God is not the God of Karl Barth. At the same time, God’s
revelation is personal rather than an idea or concept. For Liberal thinkers,
God could be “not real, but merely an illusion.”[52]
According to Karl Barth, when God revealed himself, he
revealed himself in God’s unity and entirety.[53]
We do not need to find God in other, but Jesus Christ who is the perfect
revelation of God (Hebrews 1:1-4). Actually, he is fighting against those who
tried to find God in human reasoning power or logical resolution. There were
some people who tried to prove God’s existence by human means. Therefore, Barth
strongly argued that God is wholly other and no one can find God in human but
in Christ who is the final revelation of God. This is true to Asians who do not
need proofs of God’s existence. They simply believe God without proofs although
they think that God can be found in human efforts. In this sense, Karl Barth
can be called as Asian theologian.
There is no God apart from God’s revelation. God is
entirety revealed in Jesus Christ. There is no hidden God apart from the
revealed God. God is revealed in Jesus and at the same time hidden in Jesus
Christ. Therefore, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is a great mystery.[54]
Hunsinger quoted Karl Barth, “In Jesus Christ, the innermost reality of God’s
life had bound itself to the innermost reality of our own.”[55]
Regarding
Karl Barth’s Christology, Torrance also argued that Christ was the central
theme of Karl Barth’s theology. Only in Christ, we know the Father God. In
Christ, we see God’s faithfulness and compassion and it also tells us that God
is always on the side of human beings. Therefore, incarnation of Christ is
crucial in understanding God.[56]
If someone denies incarnation or misinterpret incarnation, the whole process of
God’s revelation will be wrong. This kind of thinking leads only to a false
God.
In
his Christology, Karl Barth did not separate the person and work of Christ. The
eternal Son of the Eternal Father became a man and it is what he is and who he
is. In his work – life, death, resurrection, we see the God who is awesome and
always willing to be with his human beings. Karl Barth encouraged us to grasp
Christ in our thinking in order to know God.[57]
Jesus: The Real Human
As God’s nature is fully revealed in Jesus Christ, we can
see the real human nature only in and through Jesus Christ. Karl Barth said God
came to humanity in Jesus Christ and humanity was also brought back to God in
Jesus Christ.[58]
Therefore, Barth argued that the whole content or subject of our theology is
Jesus Christ. Unless our theology is Christo-centric, our theology will be
meaningless. Apart from Jesus Christ, there is no way to know God and to know
the real humanity. Of course, we can still talk about God and humanity, but the
God we talk will be a false God and the humanity we understand will be also
false. At the end, this kind of theology, which neglects Jesus Christ, will
lead to meaningless conclusion.
According to Hunsinger, Karl Barth thinks in terms of
“real” and “unreal” where Reinhold Niebuhr thinks “real” and “ideal”. For
Niebuhr, love is the “impossible possibility.” For Barth, however, sin is the
“impossible possibility.” Hunsinger stated, “What for Barth was the touchstone
of reality (love) was for Niebuhr the “impossible possibility,” whereas what
for Barth was the “impossible possibility” (sin) was for Niebuhr the touchstone
of reality.”[59]
Karl Barth said many people misunderstand personal
encounter with God because they understand that personal encounter with God
occurs in the level of human self-consciousness or human emotional experience.
For them, God was considered to be discovered by human efforts. Then the issue
was they see God with human eyes and they think what they know is God. Rather
than seeing human beings from God’s perspective, they try to interpret the
meaning of life with the things that they see and understand. They judge God
with human capability. Then God will be a limited being. Barth argued that
personal encounter is not human action but it is done by God’s grace alone.[60]
By quoting Karl Barth, Thomas F. Torrance said, “What God
reveals in the Bible is none other than himself: not just something divine, not
something like God, not something coming from God.”[61]
God revealed himself as He is and his revelation is God himself. Man cannot
find God outside of God’s own revelation. Torrance quotes, “The supreme sin of
man is that even in his religion he is always twisting the truth to suit his
own selfish ends and private ideas.”[62]
This is true even today because many people understand that theology is man’s
effort to understand God. They want to replace man’s thought in the truth of
God.
According to Torrance, when Karl Barth wrote his
commentary on the book of Romans, he called upon the church “to let God be God,
and let man learn again how to be man, instead of trying to be as God.”[63]
Torrance agree with Karl Barth, “what is important is not what man thinks about
God but what God thinks about man.”[64]
Jesus as the Electing
God
According to the Bible and the Reformers, the doctrine of
predestination and election is mystery (Ephesians 3:1-7; Romans 16:25). It is
beyond human understanding and it is totally God’s will. Depended on God’s
sovereign and absolute knowledge, God chooses. However, Karl Barth argues that
God chooses all people in Jesus Christ. God revealed all of his will in Jesus
Christ. Thus, he “rejected any idea of an absolute decree and any election
apart from the election of mankind in Christ.”[65]
In his writing, Barth states, “There is no such thing as a will of God apart
from the will of Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ is not only the manifestation
and the spectrum nostrae praedestinationis.”[66] Jesus Christ himself revealed us his will of
election and this is also the will of God.
Jesus as the Elected
Man
Karl Barth’s understanding of the human Jesus is
significant because he has no problem with the deity of Christ. However, he
focused on the human Jesus because all of God’s doing to save man is based on
the man Jesus. Karl Barth said there is not merit in man to be elected by God
but only because of God’s grace, God elected Jesus to become a man in order to
save man.[67]
Karl Barth writes, “The free grace of God which is mighty
from eternity and has appeared in Jesus Christ is what you must fear and love
above all things. God and his free grace are really above all the thoughts and
ideas and habits with which we Christians everywhere have lived thus far
concerning what seemed to serve his glory and human salvation.”[68]
This affirms that salvation of God is totally because of his free grace. It is
really higher than all human endeavors and good work.
The Covenant of God
God
chose human being according to the covenant made with humanity. Unless God
chose human beings to be his covenant partner, God would not be God.[69] God
made covenant with the people – God would be their God and they would be God’s
people. This is the central theme of the Bible. For Barth, God’s covenant is
not only for the people who believe God but all human beings including
non-believers. In the incarnation of Jesus Christ, God was united with the
humanity, the union of human nature and divine nature in the person of Jesus
Christ.[70]
Jesus became “true God, true man, and the God-man”[71]
that he fulfilled God’s plan.
According
to Karl Barth, the church is responsible to proclaim the cross, resurrection,
his humility and lordship of Jesus. This is because we all are sinner no matter
what good things we have done before God and other fellow human beings.
Although we are still sinners, God himself chose us to save us. In the church,
for Barth, we do not build God’s kingdom but God himself builds the kingdom “by
giving us his word and awakening faith.”[72] Therefore, our lives must be full of thanks
to God. This must be the message of the church.
God
is the unknown God. As such he gives to all life and breath and all things. His
power is neither a natural nor a spiritual power, nor one of the higher or
highest powers that we know or might know, nor the supreme power, nor their
sum, nor fount. It is the crisis of all powers, the wholly other, and compared
to which they are something and nothing, nothing and something. It is their
primary mover and their final rest.[73]
Regarding
salvation, Karl Barth sees two things. God’s plan of salvation is above and
human attempts to know and understand the salvation of God is below. Whenever
man endeavors, man will fail. Karl Barth suggests that we should see and grasp
the salvation from God’s view, that is, from above. He said we should not consider God’s plan of salvation
as human agenda. If it is true, then the Lordship of Christ and the rule of God’s
providence will be under the control of man.[74]
The Word of God
For Karl Barth, Jesus Christ the revelation of God and he
is the Word of God.[75]
Karl Barth said, Jesus is “the total and complete declaration of God concerning
himself and the men whom he addresses in His Word.”[76] Karl
Barth interpreted the Word of God as dynamic[77]
rather than static. This is what he called a new world. Torrance said, “The
discovery of the strange new world within the Bible governed by the identity of
God with his Word” and Barth asked the question that how can a mere human being
preach the Word of God if the Word of God is God himself. Karl Barth said, “The
Word of God is at once the necessary and the impossible task of the minister.”[78]
According to Barth, preaching the Word of God is possible because God himself
called the ministers to serve him in preaching the Word of God. Otherwise, it
is not possible to preach it.
For
Karl Barth, Bromiley writes, the Word of God is in the proclamation of the
church in preaching and sacrament.[79]
In saying this, Barth is fighting against the liberal’s view of preaching and
Roman Catholic understanding of sacrament. For Liberals, preaching is not
necessary in word, but it is an action. They try to replace action instead of
preaching. Moreover, Roman Catholics overemphasize sacrament of the church and
their preaching is mainly as apologetics for their beliefs and tradition and
moral instruction.[80] Barth
said since God himself is the Word, we should read and study the Word with the
utmost awe and reverence.[81]
Faith in Christ
Jesus
Christ determines our future as well as our present.[82] Faith
in Christ means fearless life. However, Barth reminds us that we should also fear
one thing that our faith can turn into unbelief. Karl Barth said, “The present
of all false faith is a joyless present; this fact may be hidden, but it is
nonetheless real, for the future of this present is darkness.”[83] “True
faith lives in the power of Jesus himself. Hence true faith does not need to
fear that it might become false faith.”[84]
“If
faith is the life of those who meet Jesus Christ as him from whom alone they
receive salvation, then one can understand … that those who live in faith,
encountering the faithfulness of God, find themselves convicted of their own
unfaithfulness.”[85]
By having true faith, people realize that they do not have any capacity or
power to receive the favor of God or to work out their own salvation.
Therefore, their desire is to put their trust in Christ and to submit their
live to Christ. Karl Barth lived a life of faith because his life was dedicated
to study the Word of God and to lead many people to the true faith.
Those
who have faith confess that human religious efforts may lead to other gods or
idols but not to Jesus.[86] True
believers know that they cannot believe on their own. Only non-believers think
that true faith is human possibility. The difference between believers and
unbelievers is that believers know that they have no capacity or possibility to
please God. Karl Barth said, “Even supposed believers who see in their faith
the actualization of a human possibility one in truth unbelievers of that
kind.”[87]
Conclusion
Karl Barth was a theology of new thoughts among his
contemporaries. Although he is praised by many theologians, many other
theologians see him as the one who creates many theological problems in the
church. However, when we study his life and thinking, it is quite clear that he
was faithful to the Bible and he found dissatisfaction in theology of his days.
In a world where people are so divided and Christianity is also seen as a way
of life only for a small religious people, Karl Barth is speaking loudly to
church leaders, Christians and even to non-Christians to think a second time
about the God we believe in, the faith that we have and the life we live.
Likewise, he is still relevant to us, especially Asian
churches where theological challenges are prevalent. As a conclusion, it is
true to say that Karl Barth talks a lot about our theological issues of today
in the light of the Bible and Karl Barth showed how to be a true follower of
Christ in the modernized age.
Bibliography
Bowden, John. Karl Barth. London: SCM Press, 1971.
Bromiley,
Geoffrey W. Introduction to the Theology
of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1979.
Brown, Colin. Karl Barth and The Christian Message.
London: Tyndale Press, 1967.
Busch, Eberhard
ed., Karl Barth: Final Testimonies, Geoffrey
W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1977.
Clark, Gordon H.
In Defense of Theology. Milford, MI:
Mott Media Inc., 1984.
Erler, Rolf
Joachim and Reiner Marquard, eds., A Karl
Barth Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1986.
Evler, Rolf
Joachim and Reiner Marquard, eds., A Karl
Barth Reader. trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Williams B.
Eerdmans, 1986.
Hughes, Philip
Edgcumbe, ed., Creative Minds in
Contemporary Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1966.
Hunsinger,
George. How to Read Karl Barth (New
York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 91.
McCormack, Bruce. Grace and Being:
The role of God’s gracious election in Karl Barth’s theological ontology,
John Webster, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
McNab, J. S.
trans., God, Grace and Gospel. Oliver
and Boyd, 1959.
Parker, T. H. L.
Karl Barth. Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.
Thursneysen,
Eduard. Revolutionary Theology in the
Making: Barth-Thurneysen Correspondence, 1914-1925. John Knox Press, 1964.
Torrance, Thomas
F. Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical
Theologian. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990.
Webster, John. Karl Barth 2nd Edition. NY:
Continuum, 2004.
Wigley, Stephen
D. Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar.
London: T&T Clark A Continuum Imprint, 2007.
Work
By Karl Barth
Barth, Karl. Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum.
_________. How I Changed My Mind. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1966.
_________. The Epistle to the Romans. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
_________. Church Dogmatics: A Selection. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962.
_________. The Theology of Schleiermacher. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982.
_________. Word of God and Word of Man.
[1] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), xi.
[2] John Webster, Karl Barth 2nd Edition (NY:
Continuum, 2004), 2.
[3] T. H. L. Parker, Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 12.
[4] Webster, 3.
[5] See more at Karl Barth, How I Changed My Mind (Richmond, VA:
John Knox, 1966), 153.
[6] Webster, 3.
[7] Parker, 12.
[8] Parker, 13.
[9] Ibid. 14.
[10] Colin Brown, 17.
[11]Webster, 13.
[12] Karl Barth, The Theology of Schleiermacher (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982),
264.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Eduard Thursneysen, Revolutionary Theology in the Making:
Barth-Thurneysen Correspondence, 1914-1925
(John Knox Press, 1964), 75; quoted by T. H. L. Parker, Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 20.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Theology of Schleiermacher, 265.
[18] See The Epistle to the Romans (London: Oxford University Press, 1933);
See also Weber, 5.
[19] Parker, 23.
[20] Karl Barth, Word of God and Word of Man, 43.
[21] Parker, 24.
[22] Parker is Anglican clergyman,
got D. D from Cambridge University. He wrote and edited some volumes on Karl
Barth.
[23] Parker, 70.
[24] Bromiley, 3.
[25] Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum, 11.
[26] Parker, 73-75.
[27] Parker, 76.
[28] Stephen D. Wigley, Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar
(London: T&T Clark A Continuum Imprint, 2007), 140.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Rolf Joachim Evler and Reiner
Marquard, eds., A Karl Barth Reader,
trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Williams B. Eerdmans, 1986), 7.
See also Church Dogmatics I/1, 3.
[31] Ibid., 12.
[32] Ibid., 13.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid. 10.
[35] Gordon H. Clark, In Defense of Theology (Milford, MI:
Mott Media Inc., 1984), 49-50.
[36] Ibid., 50.
[37] John Bowden, Karl Barth (London: SCM Press, 1971),
11.
[38] Thomas F. Torrance, Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical
Theologian (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 8.
[39] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 3.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Church Dogmatics, I, 11-14.
[42] Church Dogmatics, I, 21-23;
Quoted by Bromiley, 4.
[43] Church Dogmatics, I, 31-36;
Bromiley, 4-5.
[44] Bromiley, 5.
[45] Church Dogmaitcs, I, 40.
[46] George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth (New York/Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991), 91.
[47] Ibid., 16.
[48] Bruce McCormack, Grace and Being: The role of God’s gracious
election in Karl Barth’s theological ontology, ed. by John Webster
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 98.
[49] Colin Brown, Karl Barth and The Christian Message
(London: Tyndale Press, 1967), 103.
[50] Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth, 36.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Church Dogmatics, I. 1, 51-53.
[54] Hunsinger, 36.
[55] Ibid., 40.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Hunsinger, 39.
[60] Ibid., 40.
[61] Thomas F. Torrance, Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical
Theologian (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 3.
[62] Ibid., 7.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid., 8.
[65] Colin Brown, 105.
[66] Church Dogmatics, II, 2, 115.
[67] Church Dogmatics, II, 2, 118.
[68] Reader, 27.
[69] J. S. McNab, trans., God,
Grace and Gospel (Oliver and Boyd, 1959), S. F. T. Occasional Papers, no.
8.
[70] See also Torrance, 22, 134.
[71] Hughes, 46.
[72] A Karl Barth Reader, 10.
[73] Ibid., 19.
[74] Ibid., 26.
[75] Eberhard Busch, ed., Karl Barth: Final Testimonies, Geoffrey
W. Bromiley, trans. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1977),14.
[76] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: A Selection (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962),
230.
[77] Torrance, 85.
[78] The Word of God and The Word of Man, 213.
[79] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 6. See also Church Dogmatics, I.
1, 47-61.
[80] Bromiley, 6. Church Dogmatics,
I. 1, 70.
[81] Thomas F. Torrance, 84.
[82] Reader, 37.
[83] Ibid.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Ibid.
[86] Ibid., 38.
[87] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment