Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Barth, Karl (1886-1968) – Religion'

Il s'agit de montrer l'unite fondamentale de la theorie homiletique de karl barth a travers l'evolution de l'oeuvre et de la pensee qui l'anime de 1922 a 1968, c'est-a-dire depuis l'epoque du second romerbrief jusqu'au deces de l'auteur considere. Selon barth, la predication est renvoi a la parole que dieu lui-meme dit en jesus-christ, dans sa revelation donc (identifiee a la resurrection pascale et au temps des quarante jours que le ressuscite passa avec ses disciples jusqu'a son ascension). Il faut par consequent distinguer la parole du predicateur, parole humaine, faillible, datee, faible - d'ou la detresse du predicateur face a sa tache, detresse fondamentale et insurmontable de mains d'homme -, et la parole divine, infaillible, eternelle, puissance de vie et de salut pour quiconque croit. Mais cette differenciation fondamentale n'empeche pas qu'il faut relier ces deux paroles. C'est la promesse dont la predication et l'eglise vivent. Ce lien (praedicatio verbi dei est verbum dei, dira barth constamment a la suite de bullinger) fait de la parole humaine une parabole de la parole divine
The theory of the christian preaching, developped by karl barth throught his whole work, had a great unity. The christian preaching is the reference, from a human, faillible, date, weak, work, to the divine, unfaillible, eternal and allmighty word, jesus-christ himself, the ressuscited, the revelation of god. Karl barth wanted we distingueshed theese two words but he wanted also we bind them. The two movements are both necessary. The human word of the christian preaching is able to become the parable of the divine word when christ attests himself in the word of the preacher. It is the promise from which the christian preaching lives. It's also the distress of the preacher who knows never weather jesus-christ makes a miror of theese words or not for his proper word and grace

Cette étude poursuit l’objectif d’introduire la théologie de Barth en philosophie, à l’aide de la pensée de Bergson. Il y est montré que la conception barthienne de l’expérience religieuse peut être légitimement ressaisie sous la forme d’un problème philosophique d’une pleine actualité, celui de l’expérience pure, que la philosophie de Bergson permet de déployer dans toutes ses dimensions philosophiques
This study aims at introducing Barth’s theology into philosophy, using Bergson’s philosophy. It is shown that Barth’s conception of religious experience can legitimately be reformulated as a philosophical problem, the problem of pure experience, which is of the utmost importance in the current philosophical debate, and that Bergson’s though allows to display in all its philosophical scope

The aim of this project is to investigate the proper response of theology to the Christian God who, as revealed through revelation, is Being-in-act. This project takes seriously the idea posited by Shakespeare, that totus mundus agit histrionem, and upon this stage ‘all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts.’ If, then, God’s Being is in act, and as so many have deduced, life and death are enveloped within the drama of everyday, then, might it be possible that our theological endeavours would prosper through a dramatic rendering? In light of this, the project seeks to illumine that it is beneficial for both the Church and society, to realise how drama can be, and is, fruitful for our theological endeavours. God is Being-in-act, and through His revelation, He invites humanity to enter into and participate in His action. In light of the aforementioned, then, theology must contend with the implications for its practices, which, as is being argued, are benefited most through a full embrace of the dramatising of theology. The thesis is situated in the recent movement of our theological endeavours that recognise the profundity of the dramatic and its ability to illuminate God’s action and call to action from theology, the Church and society. Moving forward from the seminal work of Hans Urs von Balthasar, and set forth in the context of the theologies of Balthasar and Karl Barth, this project argues that it is through the dramatising of theology that theology is best equipped to illumine God’s desire for humanity’s participation in His Theo-drama. The dramatising of theology is a natural response to God’s Being-in-act; it is the natural movement of theology’s response to God’s action which calls for an active response on our part. Current examples of today’s theological movement towards the dramatic can be seen in such authors as Max Harris, Trevor Hart, Stanley Hauerwas, Michael Horton, Todd Johnson and Dale Savidge, Ben Quash, Kevin Vanhoozer, Samuel Wells and N.T. Wright. This project hopes to contribute to the movement towards the dramatising of theology.

La recherche effectuée pour cette thèse a pour but d’établir que c’est en développant, dans la Dogmatique de 1925, une interprétation christologique de l’histoire, interprétation dont l’objectif était de résoudre théologiquement, mais autrement que Barth, le problème posé par Troeltsch à partir de la critique, par l’histoire des religions, de la prétention du christia-nisme à l’absoluité, que Tillich a posé les fondements de sa réflexion future sur la rencontre du christianisme avec les religions. Dès lors, la réflexion élaborée dans les années soixante, loin de représenter un tournant dans la pensée de Tillich, comme on l’a trop souvent laissé entendre, suite aux déclarations de Mircea Eliade, en constitue plutôt l’un des fruits les plus mûrs, susceptible d’apporter une contribution à la fois originale et non encore entrevue, à la recherche contemporaine en théologie des religions

This thesis argues that Barth’s asymmetrical structuring of the Trinity in I/1, his doctrine of election in volume II, his concept of the humanity of Christ as the imago Dei in III/2 and his account of the obedience of the Son being reflected in his incarnate life, as detailed in IV/1 and IV/2, are not just coherent but mutually reinforcing. The thesis demonstrates that Barth uses a nexus of crucial terms, including ‘correspondence’ [Entsprechung], ‘reflection’ [reflex/Abbildung] and ‘overflowing’ [Ueberstroemen], to express that God’s actions and relationships ad extra reveal who God is. The concept of ‘correspondence’, tentatively present in the first two volumes, gathers pace through III/2 and achieves full force in volume IV, where the obedience of Christ in IV/2 ‘reflects’ or ‘mirrors’ the obedience of the Son in IV/1. Crucially, the fact that the economic Trinity ‘reflects’ the immanent Trinity, or (differently stated) that the immanent Trinity ‘overflows’ into the economy, establishes a direction, an asymmetry, to the relationship of ‘correspondence’. In ch. II of the thesis we argue that the asymmetry developed in the doctrine of the Trinity in I/1 is the basis for this asymmetric correspondence. Barth describes the triune life as one of giving and receiving existence, suggesting a divine order with an irreversible direction, an asymmetric order. This is shown to be particularly evident in Barth’s defence of the filioque clause which enables him to claim that the Spirit is the one in whom the ruling Father and obedient Son are united ad intra. On this basis we argue, in ch. III, that, when Barth revises his doctrine of election, he comes to see it as the event of triune reflection: the Father, Son and Spirit electing to reflect who they are with a direction of determination, an asymmetry, which is irreversible. In this respect we argue against Bruce McCormack, who sees election as the event in which God elects triunity. In ch. IV we read Barth’s III/2 account of the humanity of Christ as the imago Die, as an attempt to demonstrate that God’s economy of salvation corresponds to who he is. This theme comes into full focus in the first two part-volumes of volume IV, explored here in ch. V. The obedience of Christ reflects, corresponds to, the obedience of the Son. There is obedience in God. This concept, which so mystifies Paul Molnar and Rowan Williams, is shown to be theologically consistent with a doctrine articulated by Barth some thirty years previously: his asymmetrically structured doctrine of the Trinity.

The primary purpose of this thesis is to explore the reception of Karl Barth's theology in Korea by focusing specifically on his doctrine of the Church. This he describes as the gathering, upbuilding and sending of the Christian community. His work, Church Dogmatics, will be examined, and then an attempt will be made to identify how Barth's Christocentric ecclesiology was indigenized and is still received in Korea by examining Korean Christian thought. This will include an investigation of Sung-Bum Yun's theology of Sung.
The secondary purpose of this thesis is: (1) the description of a unique relationship between Christianity and Confucianism, because Korean Confucianism has played an important role in both the explosive growth of the Christian community and provided a basic foundation for the reception of Barth's theology in Korea; (2) the inquiry whether Barth's ecclesiology, especially his theology of mission (the sending of the Christian community), pays sufficient attention to different cultures and religions; and consequently (3) the justification that the indigenization of Barth's Christocentric theology was, and is, genuinely possible with Korean Confucianism, though Barth's theology is typically confined within the European context.
This thesis will be divided into three chapters. Chapter One is designed as a brief sketch of the historical development of early Korean Protestantism and its impact on cultural and religious changes in Korea. This will include a detailed introduction to Korean Confucianism and its community concept and structure.
In the second chapter, an analysis of Barth's ecclesiology is presented by providing a discussion of what constitutes the true church, the upbuilding of the Christian community, and the missionary task of the Christian community.
Chapter Three indicates why Barth's Christocentric ecclesiology can still make an impact on contemporary Korean ecclesiological theology and practice, by exploring a specific overview of the Korean reception of Barth's theology. On this basis, this chapter critically examines and analyzes Sung-Bum Yun's appropriation and misappropriation of Barth's theology.

This thesis provides a complete, chronological view of Barth’s concept of history throughout his theological career. The purpose of undertaking this hitherto unattempted task is to demonstrate that, ever since his full engagement with dogmatics in the mid-1920s, Barth has unequivocally affirmed the reality of the history which revelation becomes and is. Though he continues to insist upon the transcendence of revelation, he does so by way of an increasingly christocentric theology, so that both divine sovereignty and human dignity are firmly upheld. This is especially evident in his later theology, with his concentration on the history of Jesus Christ on the basis of the doctrine of election. This thesis thus rejects both the charge that Barth’s theology is ahistorical or anti-historical on the one hand, and the charge that it is excessively historical on the other.

This thesis is an analysis of Karl Barth's theological method as it appears in his treatment of three divine perfections - unity, constancy, and eternity - in Church Dogmatics, II/l, chapter VI. In order to discern the method by which Barth reaches his doctrinal conclusions, the thesis examines the respective roles of Scripture, tradition and reason-the 'threefold cord'-in this portion of his Church Dogmatics. The conclusion reached in the thesis is that, within Barth's treatment of God's unity, constancy and eternity, Scripture functions as the authoritative source and basis for theological critique and construction, and tradition and reason are functionally subordinate to Scripture. That said, Barth employs a predominantly indirect way of relating Scripture and theological proposals, a way in which tradition and reason play important 'mediatory' roles. The thesis defends these claims in the following manner. Chapter 1 surveys recent scholarship relevant to the thesis and shows how this thesis will make a distinctive contribution to scholarly discussion of Barth's theology. Chapter 2 sets up the exposition of Barth's theological method that is provided in the remaining chapters by providing a 'conceptual framework'- an orderly arrangement of definitions and conceptual categories. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the main features of Barth's Doctrine of God as whole, as it appears in Church Dogmatics, with a special emphasis on the roles of Scripture, tradition and reason within those doctrines. Chapters 4-6 are an expository analysis of Barth's treatments of divine unity, constancy and eternity respectively, and form the primary basis for the claims of the thesis. Chapter 7, the conclusion, summarises the argument and makes some final observations.

However reluctant he may be about providing details, Karl Barth dares to affirm the coming resurrection, even in the strong corporeal sense of the Apostles Creed, “I believe in . . . the resurrection of the flesh.” At the heart of Barth’s creative approach is an equation between revelation and resurrection. Indeed, everything said about the human addressed now in revelation is to be said about the human at the coming resurrection, including the remarkable fact that resurrection raises the “flesh” (inasmuch as God has revealed Himself to those “in the flesh”). Barth’s early training inculcated in him dialectical themes that would emerge throughout his career. His early work is dominated by a sense of encounter with the present but transcendent God, an encounter described in terms of the raising of the dead. Human existence is sublated – “dissolved and established” – unto a higher order in God. Yet even after Barth abandons the resurrection of the dead as his preferred theological axiom, he portrays eschatology proper in terms of the human sublated in the divine presence. Therefore, in Church Dogmatics he expresses the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh in three primary ways: eternalization, manifestation and incorporation. The human, delimited as he or she is by death, is made durable in God, obtaining the gift of eternalization. The human, ambiguous in the creaturely mode of earthly life, has one’s true identity revealed with Christ at His return, and obtains the gift of manifestation with the divine. The human, isolated as he or she is in one’s autonomy, is incorporated into the body of Christ by His Spirit, obtaining the gift of communion. In each of these expressions of resurrection Barth desires to preserve fleshliness. His account, however, entails a certain loss of temporality, creatureliness and particularity of the human when it comes to the final state. Instead of being resurrected from the dead in the strong corporeal sense, human bodies appear to be memorialized, deified, recapitulated. Though written with the language of the Antiochene and Reformed schools, Barth’s position enjoys the same strengths and suffers the same weaknesses of a more Alexandrian or Lutheran theological trajectory. Like each of the traditional lines of Christian thought about the resurrection of the flesh, Barth gravitates toward an eschatology centered around the human’s vision of God in the heavenly life. To this extent Barth’s creative treatment of the resurrection of the dead can be understood as broadly Christian, even if he risks undermining the very flesh he hopes to save.

Karl Barth (1886-1968) was an ardent defender of the filioque, the doctrine which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Generally, scholarly analysis is restricted to Barth's defence of the filioque in the first half volume of the Church Dogmatics. However, this thesis proceeds on the assumption that a fuller understanding of the filioque in Barth must take into account the genesis and development of the doctrine in his earlier thought. A latent dialectical christocentric pneumatology in the second edition of Romans (1921) provides the material theological support for the doctrine, which subsequently appears in a formal discussion of the filioque in the Gottingen Dogmatics (1924). There Barth speaks of the filioque as a theological analogy of the structure of his developing doctrine of the threefold Word of God. As preaching proceeds from revelation and Scripture, so too the Spirit is to be understood as proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Barth continues to defend and apply the filioque in the Church Dogmatics, though the original connection to the threefold form of the Word of God recedes into the background. Instead, the filioque functions systematically both as a theological guarantee of the unity of the work of the Son and the Spirit and as the eternal ground of fellowship between God and humanity. Barth's most mature view of the filioque is construed in dialectical terms whereby the Spirit is understood to be eternally active in uniting and differentiating the Father and the Son. Furthermore, Barth is atypical in the Western filioquist tradition because he refuses to speak of the filioque in terms of a "double procession"; rather, he views the Spirit as proceeding from the common being-of-the-Father-and-the-Son. Barth's stance on the filioque does not result in a form of pneumatological subordinationism, as critics often maintain. Rather, his adoption of the filioque reflects a tendency toward a superordination of the Spirit over Father and Son in a structurally similar way to Hegel's pneumatology. The thesis concludes by pointing to a tension in Barth's thought which in practice tends toward a conflation of economic and immanent Trinity as he reads back into God the problem and confrontation he perceives to exist between God and humanity.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2015.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation is a critical analysis of the significance that the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature play in Karl Barth’s Christology. It does so in five parts. First, this dissertation examines the historical orthodox understanding of the concepts anhypostasis and enhypostasis to explain the human nature of Christ, and defend the Chalcedon definition of the two natures in the patristic, scholastic, and post-scholastic periods. Historically, orthodox writers consistently express anhypostasis and enhypostasis as autonomous concepts, where enhypostasis refers to the reality of Christ’s human nature in union with the Logos, and anhypostasis expresses Christ’s human nature as having no subsistent reality outside its union with the Logos. Karl Barth appropriates anhypostasis and enhypostasis as a dual formula to express the humanity of Christ, which moves beyond historical orthodoxy and is unique to his Christology. Second, this dissertation evaluates Karl Barth’s unique interpretation of the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature as a dual and congruent formula to express how the humanity of Christ exists in union with His divine essence. Third, this dissertation follows the historical development of anhypostasis and enhypostasis in Karl Barth’s Christology and its ontological function in Barth’s development of the revelation of Jesus Christ as the ‘Word became flesh’. In his break with liberal theology Karl Barth emphasizes that the revelation of God is made manifest exclusively in the person of Jesus Christ, which is ontologically grounded in the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. Fourth, this dissertation identifies the themes of coalescence between the divine and human natures of Christ where Barth expresses Christ’s human nature as anhypostasis and enhypostasis in His role as the mediator of reconciliation between God and humanity. Fifth, this dissertation evaluates Barth’s critique of Chalcedon’s definition of the two natures expressed through the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. While Barth does not disagree with Chalcedon, he desires to express more precisely the union of divine and human natures in Christ as the act of God’s revelation, as the Son of Man, in His exaltation.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie verhandeling is 'n kritiese analise van die belangrike rol wat die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur in Karl Barth se Christologie speel. Die studie bestaan uit vyf gedeeltes. Eerstens ondersoek hierdie verhandeling die historiese ortodokse verstaan van die konsepte anhypostasis en enhypostasis om die menslike natuur van Christus te verduidelik, en die Chalsedoniese definisie van die twee nature in die patristieke, skolastiese en postskolastiese periodes te verdedig. Histories gebruik ortodokse skrywers anhypostasis en enhypostasis deurgaans as outonome konsepte, met enhypostasis wat verwys na die realiteit van Christus se menslike natuur in gemeenskap met die Logos, en anhypostasis wat verwys na die wyse waarop Christus se menslike natuur geen bestaansrealiteit los van hierdie gemeenskap het nie. Karl Barth gebruik beide anhypostasis en enhypostasis as 'n tweeledige formule om uitdrukking aan die menslike natuur van Christus te gee en gaan hiermee verder as die historiese ortodoksie posisie, wat 'n unieke eienskap van sy Christologie is. Tweedens evalueer hierdie verhandeling Karl Barth se unieke interpretasie van die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur as 'n tweeledige en kongruente formule om te verduidelik hoe die menslikheid van Christus in samehang met Sy goddelike wese bestaan. Derdens volg hierdie verhandeling die historiese ontwikkeling van anhypostasis en enhypostasis in Karl Barth se Christologie en die ontologiese funksie wat dit in Barth se ontwikkeling van die openbaring van Jesus Christus as die ‘Woord wat Vlees geword het’ verrig. In sy breek met liberale teologie beklemtoon Karl Barth dat die openbaring van God uitsluitlik in die persoon van Christus voorkom, en dat hierdie openbaring ontologies in die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur gegrond is. Vierdens, identifiseer hierdie verhandeling die temas van vereniging tussen die goddelike en menslike nature van Christus, waar Barth Christus se menslike natuur as anhypostasis en enhypostasis in Sy rol as bemiddelaar van versoening tussen God en mens beskryf. Vyfdens evalueer hierdie verhandeling Barth se kritiek op die Chalsedoniese definisie van die twee nature, wat uit sy verstaan van die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur voortspruit. Terwyl Barth wel Chalcedon aanvaar, wil hy graag op meer presiese wyse die eenheid van goddelike en menslike nature in Christus, as die handeling van God se openbaring as die Seun van die Mens in Sy verheerliking, beskryf.

‘Simul sanctification' is a transformational program for sanctification derived from Karl Barth's radical appropriation of Luther's dictum simul iustus et peccator. Barth's simul establishes the Christological link of the Second Adam with every human being. From this emerges what I contend is a ‘Chalcedonian anthropology' built on a double-duality: the original Chalcedonian formulation gives rise to a second duality revealed within Christ's one human person—the duality of a true, iustus humanity and a corrupt, peccator humanity. In order to appreciate the benefits regarding Barth's Spirit-charged epistemological program for sanctification and conversion, it will be imperative to elucidate the comprehensive nature of Barth's actualism as a way of establishing Barth's view of humanity's dynamic and free iustitia in Christ. Central to assessing the threat of the peccatum determination will be an examination of Barth's theology of the cross, especially in regards to his single subject economy derived from the person of ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified.' Through Barth's assessment of the cross I exposit the similarities and the differences between Chalcedonian Christology and ‘Chalcedonian anthropology;' the latter duality is proven by resurrection revelation to be ultimately provisional in nature. From here I probe Barth's position regarding the annulment of the simul as well as its beginning. By investigating Barth's doctrine of creation I argue that Barth's simul is reflective of the original antithesis between God and nothingness, the darkness under which Christ first placed himself so that humans would know both his solidarity in the darkness and his victory over it. Christians continue to dwell in the overlap of the simul's two mutually exclusive determinations, but by looking through Barth's simul to our true, created and redeemed humanity in Christ we are equipped to interpret our lives and the world around us most hopefully.

The Swiss theologian Karl Barth’s (1886-1968) relation to the Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is one which has been touched upon repeatedly with regard to influence and parallels. It is an issue that has produced diverse conclusions ranging from that of T. F. Torrance, who believed Barth to have been influenced by Kierkegaard to an extent even unknown to himself, to the likes of Bruce McCormack who views the affinity as exaggerated. However, this intriguing relationship refuses a conclusive position regarding the extent to which Barth had been influenced by Kierkegaard; any attempt that seeks to resolve this question disregards both the complexity of Barth’s thought and the sheer range of thinkers who had contributed to his theological development. Moreover, Barth’s own comments on the influence of Kierkegaard on his development complicate the investigation into the relationship between the two. Whereas in 1922 Barth admits a dependence on Kierkegaard in the second edition of The Epistle to the Romans, by 1963 he has assumed a more cautious relation to Kierkegaard.

Wolfhart pannenberg reproche a karl barth sa methode de la theologie trinitaire qui postule un sujet divin anterieur a sa triple differenciation si bien que le fils et l’esprit sont «unilateralement» dependants du pere, et il se decide pour une autre methode qui souligne une dependance «reciproque» des trois personnes dans la revelation, afin d’affirmer leur unite eschatologique avec l’identite du dieu en soi et du dieu dans l’histoire. Revenant a la theologie de thomas d’aquin, notre etude formule deux modeles qui tiennent compte de la «reciprocite» et de l’«asymetrie» dans la relation divine. Les theologies pannenbergienne et barthienne sont analysees en tant qu’applications de ces modeles, cette derniere etant revisitee avec maurice merleau-ponty. Les implications des deux modeles sont ensuite examinees a l’exemple de la mort du christ qui «prend notre place sur la croix», la theologie barthienne etant encore developpee avec une idee de michel de certeau : «faire place a l’autre»
Wolfhart pannenberg criticizes karl barth for his method of trinitarian theology, which sets up a divine subject prior to his triple differenciation, in such a way that the son and the spirit are ‘one-sidely’ dependent on the father, and he chooses another method, one that emphasizes a triple ‘reciprocal’ dependence disclosed in the revelation, and asserts god’s oneness eschatologically together with the identity of the economic and the immanent trinity. Going back to thomas aquinas, our study formulates two models which take into account both ‘reciprocity’ and ‘asymmetry’ for the divine relation. The trinitarian theologies of pannenberg and barth are analysed as applications of these models, whereas barth’s discussion is reconsidered with the help of maurice merleau-ponty. The results of both models are verified with respect to the christ who ‘takes our place on the cross’, barthian theology being then further developed with michel de certeau’s idea of ‘making place for the other’

Contemporary theology increasingly is concerned with 'inter-disciplinary dialogue'. There has, however, been little work done on the under-girding structures of such a dialogue. The central concern of this thesis is to explore the methodological foundations for the relation between 'theology' and 'secular discourse'. Although there are many possibilities for testing the relation between theology and secular discourse, theological anthropology and the doctrine of sin are used as the primary testing grounds because they are central to the concerns of much contemporary systematic theology as well as being areas to which the secular world has much to contribute. Alistair McFadyen's and Karl Barth's work in these areas is adopted as the particular focus of the thesis. Together their work offers a rich environment for analysing the methodological issues at stake in the relationship between theology and secular discourse. The primary aim of the thesis is to offer an approach to interdisciplinary dialogue which maintains 'the priority of God' in theological method whilst recognising that engagement with secular discourse enables theology 'to do its job better'. Drawing from McFadyen's and Barth's work in theological anthropology and the doctrine of sin, some methodological foundations for structuring the relation between theology and secular discourse are laid out and stated in a more widely applicable form.

Thesis (D. Th.)--University of Stellenbosch, 2005.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Christian confessions are frequently seen as Christian documents that have nothing to do with the subject of politics. This study endeavours to investigate the relationship between Christian confessions and politics, looking particularly at how the relationship between them has been construed in the theology of Karl Barth, the Barmen Declaration and the Belhar Confession. It concludes that a relationship between confession and politics is unavoidable, yet this relationship is only best comprehended when one looks at it in a confessional manner. A ‘confessional manner’ of reading Karl Barth’s theology is explained. Issues such as the primacy of the Word of God, the church as the subject of theology, the public witness of Christ to the world, the political context in which this theology takes place, as well as the ethical implications which emanates from this theology characterises confessional theology. The usage of the concept “confession” is informed by Barth’s observation that as Christians we are obliged to speak about God, but we are human beings and therefore cannot speak about God in an manner that suggest that God is fully comprehensible. By confining itself not merely to his monumental work – the Church Dogmatics – but also to Barth’s preceding and succeeding works, this research is able to render a detailed illustration of how Barth viewed the relationship of confessions to politics. Chapter 1 establishes the confessional nature of his theology. This chapter traces the most influential people and events that shaped the confessional nature of Barth’s theology. These include Luther, Kant, the Blumhardts, as well as Calvin and the Reformed theology in particular. Chapter 2 investigates whether Barth was true to his 1925 understanding of what constituted a Reformed confession when he was confronted with the need to confess in 1934. The historicity of the Barmen Theological Declaration is explored to illustrate that Barth continued to view theology in a confessional manner. Chapter 3 deals with Barth’s Church Dogmatics, illustrating that Barth never wanted his work to be seen as a complete event, but preferred to see it as a process. It argues that contrary to the 1930s where Barth’s theology insisted on the essence of confessional theology, the entire Church Dogmatics (especially the parts that proceeds the era indicated) should be read as confessional theology. Chapter 4 deals with the Belhar Confession that was adopted in South African in 1986. Admitting that the Belhar Confession was influenced by the theology of Barth, the characteristics of confessional theology are also explored in this Confession. It is argued that many have failed to see the Belhar Confession’s call for embodiment, because they have interpreted this Confession without regard for the new church order. Finally, it is argued that the confessional nature of Belhar allows this Confession to contribute positively to the current democratic dispensation in South Africa. It is admitted that the Belhar Confession is a confession of its time and. It is also argued that a confessional theology can be a suitable theological alternative that can contribute to the current theological deliberations. Additionally a confessional theology can provide a platform of discussing ways in which theology and politics, which remain intertwined, can both exist side by side, without the one dictating to the other.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Christelike belydenisse word dikwels beskou as Christelike verklarings wat geen verband met die politiek het nie. Gevolglik is daar 'n neiging om hierdie dokumente bloot te sien as teologies maar nie polities nie. Hierdie navorsing bespreek dié siening, maar voer aan dat, hoewel hierdie dokumente nie as sodanig polities is nie, ons tog nie die politieke kontekste waaruit hulle voortspruit, kan ignoreer nie. Twee belydenisse word gebruik om hierdie punt te illustreer, naamlik die Barmen Teologiese Verklaring (1934) in Nazi-Duitsland, en die Belharbelydenis (1986) gedurende die apartheidsregering in Suid-Afrika. Die gevolgtrekking van hierdie studie is dat daar in die teologie van Karl Barth én die Belhar Belydenis 'n onvermydelike verhouding tussen die Christelike belydenis en politiek bestaan. Die woord ”belydenis” word hier in verband gebring met Barth se interpretasie van die opdrag om oor God te praat uit hoofde van ons Christelike oortuigings, en ons onvermoë om oor God te praat weens ons menslike feilbaarheid. Hiervolgens is belydende teologie gekant teen neigings om oor God te praat op 'n manier wat voorgee dat God in sy volheid aan ons bekend is. Vyf opsigtelike kenmerke in die teologie van Barth word ondersoek. Hierdie kenmerke illustreer die mate waartoe teologie en politiek aan mekaar verwant is, en dat politiek altyd in Barth se teologie geïmpliseer word. Die studie voer ook aan dat Barth se teologie relevant is omdat dit probeer om die Woord op 'n ander manier te interpreteer na aanleiding van die spesifieke konteks waarbinne daar oor God gepraat word. Die studie beweer verder dat Barth se hele teologie as belydende teologie gelees moet word. Die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat belydende teologie verskil van “konfessionalisme” en altyd die beliggaming van dít wat bely word, impliseer. Deur hierdie kenmerke van belydende teologie in die teologie van Barth waar te neem, word daar besef dat sy teologie steeds ‘n deurslaggewende rol in ander teologiese kontekste speel. Om hierdie rede word daar aangevoer dat die Belharbelydenis grootliks deur die teologie van Barth beïnvloed is. Die debat oor die Belharbelydenis bring ook belangrike vrae oor die teologiese situasie in Suid-Afrika na vore. Ten slotte word daar aangevoer dat belydende teologie 'n nuttige teologie is wat teologie in die algemeen kan beskerm teen die kloue van “geteologiseerde politiek”. Hierdie teologie kan dus steeds 'n konstruktiewe bydrae tot die huidige teologiese debatte in 'n demokratiese Suid-Afrika lewer.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2013.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation is an attempt to show the centrality of prayer in the Christian life, in faith and obedience, according to Karl Barth. It is argued that the Christian life was not the focus of Barth’s theology. The focus of his theology was the divine reality upon which the Christian life is grounded and in which it continually finds its own reality. In its correspondence to and dependence upon God’s reality, God’s Word and work, the Christian life is for Barth both faith and obedience, and at the core of faith and obedience, it is prayer. The inseparable relationship between faith, obedience and prayer, is not due to the nature of humanity, the Christian, or even the Christian life as such, but due to the divine reality which gives faith, obedience and prayer its reality. Faith and obedience are inseparably related. Both are equally impossible for humanity by its own power and capacity. It is only by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that humanity is justified and sanctified, thus turning its unbelief into faith and its disobedience into obedience. The unity of faith and obedience lies therein that they both form part of the one event of the reconciliation between God and humanity, which is accomplished in Jesus Christ. Both form part of the Self-revelation of this reconciliation by God’s Word. The reconciliation between God and humanity, revealed by the Word of God, does not depend on faith and obedience, but is effective by its own power and grace, which brings both faith and obedience simultaneously into existence. The reality of faith and obedience is a hidden reality, a divine reality, an eschatological reality, which is not externally observable, but can only be believed in faith, to which we are moving in obedience, and which we ask for in prayer. Faith and prayer are also inseparably related. Faith, knowledge of God, is a personal response to God’s gracious and miraculous Self-revelation, which humanity cannot produce by its own power. And therefore faith is to pray. Faith is always praying, for God’s Self-revelation never becomes the possession of the believer, but is always given anew, thus necessitating faith to always ask anew for God’s Self-revelation. Faith knows God in personal response, knows God in asking always anew, and therefore knows God in prayer. Faith only has knowledge of God by talking to God, by responding in prayer to God’s prior Self-revelation to faith, and by asking for God to reveal God-self always anew. Obedience and prayer are also inseparably related. Both obedience and prayer exist in the freedom of being bound unconditionally to God’s action and Word. Freedom is not freedom from obligation, but the freedom of living within the claim of God’s lordship over our lives. The freedom of obedience is the freedom to act in reaction to the action of God. It is the liberation from pondering over different possibilities, and the freedom for living in the one and only path laid before it, the path of obedience. The freedom of prayer is the freedom to respond in correspondence to the Word of God, by which it is addressed and claimed. It is the liberation from all other voices and claims, and the freedom to give witness to the one and only voice which claims its life in totality. Faith, prayer and obedience are inseparably related. All three form part of the one Christian life lived under the Lord, who is Lord over the whole of creation, and who is Lord over the whole of the Christian life. In faith, obedience and prayer the Christian lives in correspondence to God’s lordship over the world, the church and the individual. Becoming a Christian, means believing in Jesus Christ. It means continually looking away from oneself, to Jesus Christ, who justifies humanity despite its unbelief, despite its pride, despite its faith in itself. Faith discards trust in itself, and trusts Jesus Christ completely. Being a Christian, means obeying Jesus Christ. It means to surrender to Jesus Christ as the only Lord whom one is to obey in life and in death. As Jesus Christ sanctifies disobedient and slothful humanity, obedience is the freedom to rise and follow Jesus. Acting as a Christian, means praying with Jesus Christ. It means to ask in the Name of Jesus Christ, in the power and presence of Jesus Christ, in the grace and lordship of Jesus Christ, that we will be able to believe what we cannot believe by our own power, and that we will be able to obey what we cannot obey by our own power.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie proefskrif is ‘n poging om aan te dui dat gebed in die hart staan van die Christelike lewe, in beide geloof en gehoorsaamheid, volgens die teologie van Karl Barth. In hierdie studie word aangevoer dat die Christelike lewe nie die fokus van Barth se teologie was nie. Die fokus van sy teologie was die Goddelike werklikheid waarop die Christelike lewe gegrond is en vanwaar dit voortdurend ‘n eie werklikheid ontvang. In ooreenstemming met en in afhanklikheid van God se werklikheid, God se Woord en werk, is die Christelike lewe volgens Barth gelyktydig geloof en gehoorsaamheid, en in die kern van geloof en gehoorsaamheid, staan gebed. Die onskeibare verhouding tussen geloof, gehoorsaamheid en gebed, is nie vanweë die aard van die mens, die Christen, of selfs die Christelike lewe in sigself nie, maar vanweë die Goddelike realiteit wat aan geloof, gehoorsaamheid en gebed hul werklikheid skenk. Geloof en gehoorsaamheid staan in ‘n onskeibare verband tot mekaar. Beide is ewe onmoontlik vir mense in hul eie krag and vermoë. Dit is net deur die genade van God in Jesus Christus, deur die krag van die Heilige Gees, dat die mensdom geregverdig en geheilig word, waardeur ongeloof in geloof, en ongehoorsaamheid in gehoorsaamheid verander word. Die eenheid van geloof en gehoorsaamheid lê daarin dat beide deel uitmaak van die een gebeurtenis van versoening tussen God en mens, wat in Jesus Christus plaasvind. Beide maak deel uit van die Self-openbaring van hierdie versoening deur God se Woord. Die versoening tussen God en mens, wat die Woord van God openbaar, is nie afhanklik van geloof en gehoorsaamheid nie, maar is effektief in eie krag, deur genade, en dit bring beide geloof en gehoorsaamheid tot stand. Die werklikheid van geloof en gehoorsaamheid is ‘n verborge werklikheid, ‘n Goddelike werklikheid, ‘n eskatologiese werklikheid, wat nie van buite waarneembaar is nie, maar wat slegs in geloof geglo kan word, waarnatoe ons beweeg in gehoorsaamheid, en waarvoor ons vra in gebed. Geloof en gebed staan ook in ‘n onskeibare verband tot mekaar. Geloof, kennis van God, is ‘n persoonlike antwoord op God se genadige en wonderbaarlike Self-openbaring, wat die mens nie in eie krag kan skep nie. En daarom is geloof om te bid. Geloof bid voortdurend, want God se Self-openbaring raak nooit die besitting van die gelowige nie, maar word altyd opnuut gegee, wat dit noodsaaklik maak vir geloof om altyd opnuut te vra vir God se Self-openbaring. Geloof ken God deur ‘n persoonlike antwoord, deur altyd opnuut te vra, en daarom ken geloof vir God in gebed. Geloof het slegs kennis van God deur met God te praat, deur in gebed te antwoord op Gods voorafgaande Self-openbaring aan geloof, en deur vir God te vra om Godself altyd opnuut te openbaar. Gehoorsaamheid en gebed staan ook in ‘n onskeibare verband tot mekaar. Beide gehoorsaamheid en gebed bestaan in die vryheid om onvoorwaardelik gebonde te wees aan God se Woord en werk. Vryheid is nie vryheid van verpligtinge nie, maar die vryheid om te leef binne die aanspraak van God se heerskappy oor ons lewens. Die vryheid van gehoorsaamheid is die vryheid om aktief op te tree in reaksie op die aksie van God. Dit is om bevry te word van bepeinsing oor verskillende moontlikhede, en die vryheid om te leef vir die een en enigste pad wat voor sigself lê, die pad van gehoorsaamheid. Die vryheid van gebed is die vryheid om te antwoord in ooreenstemming met die Woord van God, waardeur die mens aangespreek word en in beslag geneem word. Dit is die bevryding van alle ander stemme en aansprake, en die vryheid om te getuig van die een en enigste stem wat die lewe in totaliteit in beslag neem. Geloof, gehoorsaamheid en gebed is in ‘n onskeibare verband tot mekaar. Al drie maak deel uit van die een Christelike lewe wat geleef word onder die Heer, wat Heer is oor die hele skepping en ook oor die Christelike lewe. In geloof, gehoorsaamheid en gebed leef die Christen in ooreenstemming met God se heerskappy oor die wêreld, die kerk en die individu. Om ‘n Christen te word, beteken om te glo. Dit beteken om voortdurend weg te kyk van sigself, na Jesus Christus, wat die mensdom regverdig ten spyte van hul ongeloof, ten spyte van hul trots, ten spyte van hul geloof in hulself. Geloof vertrou nie op sigself nie, maar vertrou Jesus Christus volledig. Om ‘n Christen te wees, beteken om Jesus Christus te gehoorsaam. Dit beteken om sigself oor te gee aan Jesus Christus as die enigste Heer wat gehoorsaam moet word in lewe en in sterwe. Jesus Christus heilig die ongehoorsame en trae mensdom, wat aan die mens die vryheid gee om op te staan en Jesus te volg in gehoorsaamheid. Om op te tree as ‘n Christen, beteken om te bid saam met Jesus Christus. Dit beteken om in die Naam van Jesus Christus, in die krag en teenwoordigheid van Jesus Christus, in die genade en heerskappy van Jesus Christus, te vra dat ons in staat sal wees om te glo wat ons nie self kan glo nie, en dat ons in staat sal wees om te gehoorsaam wat ons nie self kan gehoorsaam nie.

Thesis (MTh)--Stellenbosch University, 2013.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Is the demonic personal or impersonal? The question is rarely treated in depth. This thesis initially delves into the demonological offerings of a pair of twentieth century theologians, Karl Barth and Merrill Unger, in order to discern their particular positions upon the subject. Personhood itself is a divisive issue between the two theologians. Barth’s perspective on personhood is not intrinsically linked to the physical nature. Persons are who they are because of their relationship with the divine. In reference to the demonic, Unger briefly assesses personhood by inseparably correlating it with ontological reality. Their disagreement continues into the definition of “demon.” Barth prefers to see the demonic as uncreated yet derived from God as a byproduct of His creative decree, and Unger opts for a famous classical construction that they are created beings who rebelled against their Maker. Yet, Barth and Unger are both found to not only adhere to personal language concerning the demonic but also to posit demons as personal beings. According to Barth and Unger, demons are real, personal, and malevolent. This unusual unity, even with their distinct theological backgrounds, can only be properly understood as the result of their mutual profession to reflect the biblical material. Considering the dated nature of Barth and Unger’s writings, recent biblical scholarship is examined in order to determine whether or not their attestation of a demonic personhood is borne out by current studies. While a few exceptions are noted, the majority of scholars indicate that the biblical material portrays personal intermediary players besides God and humanity, with the category of “demon” becoming progressively prevalent as one chronologically journeys through the divine revelation. Spurning a Bultmann-inspired demythologization, Barth and Unger simply attempt to reflect the biblical material. But how does Barth and Unger’s idea of demonic personhood hold up in light of the multicultural context? As the globe hurriedly shrinks during our technologically connected age, the boundaries between cultures have fallen, resulting in numerous contexts which contain two or more cultures sharing the same space. How can Christianity navigate such turbulent times, except by emphasizing the centrality of the God’s Word! It coheres God’s people, while convicting and transforming every contacted culture. In the multicultural context, specifically through the Western and African worldviews, Barth and Unger’s personhood of the demonic speaks admonition and affirmation to the Christian masses. Unhealthy superstition is challenged,and dismissive skepticism is chastised. Caution is upheld, and the openness of the African worldview is vindicated. Thus, in light of the multicultural context, a biblical personhood of the demonic realm is plausible, and as a revelation-centric position, it surpasses current ethnocentric expressions of the topic. As we turned toward constructing some conclusions, Barth and Unger’s strengths and weaknesses were assessed. Karl Barth claims that conveying the biblical testimony is his first concern, but on the subject of the demonic, he entertains a confusing philosophy which unpredictably maintains personhood. Merrill Unger paints with broad brush strokes, failing to discuss or respond to the progressive way in which the demonic is unveiled throughout the biblical text. One of the strengths of Barth’s demonological presentation, which includes demonic personhood, is that he highlights the activity of the demonic before the ontology of the demonic. Though interacting with scholars and theologians, Unger’s clear emphasis and strength is on recapitulating the biblical text, linking nearly every point to numerous texts. Finally, if we accept the reality of a personal demonic, our response to the demonic should reflect it. Theologically, it should spur us onward toward a truly personal view of redemption. Practically, it means that we should critically analyze and carefully consider the constructive works of counselors, pastors, and deliverance practitioners that we may cautiously adapt our ecclesiological practices to reflect biblical realities.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Is die demoniese persoonlik of onpersoonlik? Die vraag word selde in diepte behandel. Hierdie tesis beskou aanvanklik die demonologiese aanbiedinge van twee twintigste-eeuse teoloë, Karl Barth en Merril Unger, om hulle spesifieke standpunte oor die onderwerp te onderskei. Persoonskap self is 'n verdelende kwessie tussen die twee teoloë. Barth se perspektief op persoonskap is nie intrinsiek aan hulle fisiese aard gekoppel nie. Persone is wie hulle is weens hul verhouding met die goddelike. Met verwysing na die demoniese evalueer Unger kortliks persoonskap deur dit onlosmaaklik met die ontologiese werklikheid te korreleer. Hul meningsverskil strek tot in hul definisie van die "demoon". Barth verkies om die demoniese as ongeskape, tog afgelei van God as 'n byproduk van Sy skeppingsverordening te sien, en Unger verkies 'n bekende klassieke voorstel dat hulle geskape wesens is wat in opstand gekom het teen hulle Maker. Tog word daar gevind dat Barth en Unger beide nie persoonlike taal betreffende die demoniese aanhang nie, maar demone ook as persoonlike wesens poneer. Volgens Barth en Unger is demone werklik, persoonlik en kwaadwillig. Hierdie ongewone eensgesindheid, selfs met hul verskillende teologiese agtergronde, kan slegs behoorlik verstaan word as die gevolg van hul gedeelde aanspraak dat hulle die Bybelse stof weerspieël. Die verouderde aard van Barth en Unger se geskrifte in ag geneem, word onlangse Bybelwetenskap ondersoek om te bepaal of hulle bevestiging van 'n demoniese persoonskap deur huidige studies beaam word. Hoewel 'n paar uitsonderings waargeneem word, dui die meerderheid geleerdes daarop dat die Bybelse stof persoonlike tussengangers buiten God en die mensdom uitbeeld, met die kategorie van die "demoon" wat toenemend voorkom soos wat 'n mens chronologies deur die goddelike openbaring reis. In veragting van 'n Bultmann-geïnspireerde ontmitologisering probeer Barth en Unger eenvoudig die Bybelse stof weerspieël. Maar hoe hou Barth en Unger se idee van demoniese persoonskap stand in die lig van die multikulturele konteks? Soos die wêreld haastig krimp tydens ons tegnologies-verbinde tydperk, het die grense tussen kulture verval, wat gelei het tot verskeie kontekste waarin twee of meer kulture dieselfde ruimte deel. Hoe kan die Christendom sulke onstuimige tye navigeer, behalwe deur die sentraliteit van Gods Woord te benadruk! Dit verenig God se volk, onderwyl dit elke kultuur waarmee ons in verbinding tree oortuig en transformeer. In die multikulturele konteks, veral deur die Westerse en Afrika se wêreldbeelde, spreek Barth en Unger se persoonlikheid van die demoniese van vermaning en bekragtiging aan die Christenmassas. Ongesonde bygeloof word uitgedaag, en afwysende skeptisisme word gekasty. Omsigtigheid word gehandhaaf, en die oopheid van Afrika se wêreldbeskouing word geregverdig. Dus, in die lig van die multikulturele konteks, is 'n Bybelse persoonskap van 'n persoonlike demoniese realm geloofwaardig, en as openbaringsgesentreerde standpunt oortref dit huidige etnosentriese uitdrukkings van die onderwerp. Soos wat ons 'n paar gevolgtrekkings begin maak het, is Barth en Unger se sterk- en swakpunte geassesseer. Karl Barth beweer dat die oordra van die Bybelse getuienis sy eerste belang is, maar betreffende die onderwerp van die demoniese koester hy 'n verwarrende filosofie wat onvoorspelbaar persoonskap handhaaf. Merrill Unger verf met breë kwashale, en versuim om die progressiewe wyse waarop die demoniese dwarsdeur die Bybelse teks ontsluier word te bespreek of daarop te reageer. Een van die sterk punte van Barth se demonologiese voorstelling, wat demoniese persoonskap insluit, is dat hy die aktiwiteit van die demoniese bó die ontologie beklemtoon. Hoewel hy in gesprek is met geleerdes en teoloë, lê Unger se duidelike klem en krag in sy samevatting van die Bybelse teks, met die koppeling van byna elke punt aan talle tekste. Laastens, as ons die werklikheid van 'n persoonlike demoniese aanvaar, moet ons reaksie daarop dit weerspieël. Teologies moet dit ons aanspoor om verder in die rigting van 'n waarlik persoonlike siening van verlossing. Prakties beteken dit dat ons die konstruktiewe werke van verlossingspraktisyns, pastore, en raadgewers krities moet ontleed en versigtig moet oorweeg sodat ons versigtig ons ekklesiologiese praktyke kan aanpas om Bybelse werklikhede te weerspieël.

This study offers an ecumenical exploration of human transformation through the examination of this topic in the thought of Karl Barth (1888-1968), a Swiss Reformed theologian; Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), a Roman Catholic theologian; and John Zizioulas (b. 1931), a Greek Orthodox theologian. Describing and understanding human transformation stands as a crucial task for theology because no one is simply born a Christian—in order to be a Christian one must become a Christian. The first chapter introduces this topic, the three theologians (highlighting their commonalities), and the three questions that guide the analysis of each theologian and the thesis as a whole: What is the goal of human transformation? What is the basis of human transformation? How are humans transformed? Chapters 2, 3, and 4 treat the topic of human transformation in the theology of Barth, Ratzinger, and Zizioulas, respectively. All three understand the goal of human transformation to be the prayer of the children of God, and locate its basis in God’s reconciling act in Jesus Christ—an act itself based in the primordial divine decision to be God pro nobis. Even within this broad agreement, however, differences are evident, especially with regard to eschatology. Consideration of how this transformation occurs reveals significant differences concerning the agency of Jesus Christ in relation to the Holy Spirit and the church. The final chapter explores 1) the convergences and divergences between Barth, Ratzinger, and Zizioulas regarding human transformation; 2) the contributions of this study to the interpretation of Barth, Ratzinger, and Zizioulas; and 3) the relationship between human transformation and participation in God. Throughout, attention is given to the relationship between Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, the eschaton, and the triunity of God and human transformation. All three accounts of human transformation point beyond the transition between sinful and redeemed humanity to a dynamic anthropology in which the constant asking, receiving, thanking, and asking again is the very “ontological location” of the eschatological life of humanity: our being is in becoming.

The extent to which the 'honour' of the Spirit influenced the theology of Jonathan Edwards is a hitherto underdeveloped theme. Against a backdrop of Patristic thought and in dialogue with the theology of Karl Barth, evaluation is made of pneumatological union in Edwards' Trinitarian theology as this centres on the nature and inter-relatedness of the 'three unions' that characterize his theology: the union of the three Persons of the Trinity, the union of the saints with God, and the union of the divine and human natures of Christ. Edwards' seeks to honour the Spirit as the mutual love of the Father for the Son within his Augustinian, Lockean model of the immanent Trinity, and as 'Person' in the economy. The challenges of doing so within the limits of this psychological model of the Trinity are evaluated in dialogue with the Cappadocian Fathers and Barth. In a manner patterned after union in the Trinity, Edwards gave prominence to the concept of the pneumatological union of the saints with God in Christ, in fulfilment of the self-glorifying purpose of God in creation and redemption. Edwards' experiential theology of conversion, and his elevation of subjective sanctification by the Spirit over objective justification in Christ, for assurance, is contrasted with Barth's greater emphases on the Christological union of God with humanity and objective justification in Christ. Barth's more contemplative approach is contrasted with the overly introspective spirituality of Edwards. Edwards' view of the role of the Spirit in the hypostatic union of God with humanity in Christ, which is reflective of the other unions, is also evaluated in light of Patristic, Reformed-Puritan and Barthian thought on the nature of the humanity Christ assumed, and the doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Christ. A more emphatic incarnational emphasis may have saved Edwards' Spirit- honouring spirituality from an anthropocentricity which is ironical given that the glory of God is his ontic doxological concern.

This thesis consists of an original translation, annotation, and analysis of Karl Barth’s Academic lectures on Ephesians, delivered in Göttingen, winter semester, 1921-1922. The translation is composed from a typescript of Barth’s handwritten manuscript, located in the Karl Barth Archives, Basel, and is annotated for scholarly research, including complete bibliographical information on Barth’s sources. Barth’s exposition is a detailed exegesis of the Greek text of Eph. 1:1-23, comprising 13 lectures, with a summary of Ephesians 2-6 in the final chapter. Materially and formally, the exposition strongly resembles Romans II and Barth’s 1919 sermons on Ephesians, which the study examines. It also exhibits the theological objectivity of the Göttingen period, chiefly because of Barth’s explication of gnosis in Ephesians and his appropriation of Calvin’s theology of the knowledge of God. Barth made a material discovery in his study of Ephesians that fundamentally shaped his subsequent theology. He observes in Eph. 1:3-14 a train of thought which witnesses to God’s action to the creature in Christ and the creature’s subsequent movement to God. He concludes that we have come from God, who has chosen us in eternal election, and we are moving toward the glory of God, our divinely appointed goal. The exposition’s central theme is expressed in Barth’s claim that “the knowledge of God is the presupposition” and “the goal” of human existence. The distinguishing mark of Barth’s theological exegesis is its concreteness, that is, his ability to speak about the text’s contemporary meaning without lapsing into theological abstraction. This concreteness is the consequence of his theological hermeneutic. He describes the interpretive event as a field of action, consisting of the biblical text, the activity of the interpreter, and the divine speech act.

This study is an exercise in understanding both doctrinally and pastorally the nature of knowledge of God for persons with intellectual disabilities. Its central question is: “How might one know the Word of God without words?” At present, no extended theological systematical consideration has taken place of this question, and confusion arguably exists in the church and wider disability circles as to if/how persons with high support needs, such as intellectual disability, should be afforded pastoral care. This study addresses this need in dialogue with Karl Barth’s theological insights, and by developing an account of knowledge of God for persons with intellectual disabilities that is at once theologically informed and pastorally effective. In the last thirty years theological reflection considered in light of the situation of disability has seen tremendous growth and change, as the discipline has budded and blossomed. In particular, theologians of disability have reflected on the significance of disability in relation to the Christian doctrines of creation, anthropology, Christology, the imago Dei, ecclesiology and eschatology, amongst others, with rich and varied results. Similarly, this project suggests that consideration of the doctrine of revelation and the discipline of pastoral care in light of the situation of intellectual disability will yield unique and valuable outcomes for the disability community, but also for the wider church. Karl Barth will be the primary dialogue partner in these preparatory, theological stages. His thought regarding the incarnation of the Word in various forms, perhaps surprisingly, opens new avenues for our reflection. By engaging Barth’s theological anthropology as well as his theology of co-humanity of being with others in encounter, this project aims to demonstrate that knowledge of God is possible for all persons of all abilities.

This work proposes that the foundation for justice in society begins with an understanding of personhood that begins with Christian theology. While ethical stances such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights are helpful in articulating the bounds of justice in society, such humanistic declarations and programs may reach an impasse if they do not incorporate the depth and complexity of human personhood revealed in Jesus Christ. I will make this argument by comparing the Christian anthropologies of two prominent advocates for social justice in the Catholic and Protestant traditions: Karol Wojytla/Pope John Paul II and Karl Barth. Parts One and Two of this thesis will examine the strong critique which both of these men offered within their own historical context toward systems which denied the vital connection between Christian theology and persons in society. These parts will outline the distinctly Christian anthropologies that each theologian proposed as a basis for social justice. The final part of this thesis will set these two anthropologies in critical interaction with one another in the key area of divergence: the ontology of human personhood and the methodological issues integral to it. While John Paul has raised critical issues which are central to social ethics and has articulated many of the complexities of human action, Karl Barth's Christological anthropology proposes an ontological construct of being which critically critiques human motivation and behaviour while also providing a social starting point for personal ethics.

This dissertation investigates the evangelical ethics of Prof. Oliver O’Donovan in order to explore the implications of his “evangelical realism” for theological anthropology, moral knowledge and the concept of moral order. The Barth-Brunner debate regarding natural theology provides a lens onto these issues. Theological case studies are used to test our findings. Chapter 1 provides an overture to these issues, paying attention to current ideas about human nature and morality, and the growing influence of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. Chapter 2 focuses on Resurrection and Moral Order, elucidating the salient factors in its outline for evangelical ethics. Chapter 3 diagnoses the challenges which a dialectical epistemology presents to the development of a doctrine of evangelical ethics. Chapter 4 delves into O’Donovan’s treatment of the Barth-Brunner debate over natural theology, and discovers therein an illuminating correspondence between O’Donovan’s ethics and the concept of a human “capacity for revelation” (Offenbarungsmächtigkeit), which became a hinge issue in the debate. This provides a helpful lens onto O’Donovan’s concept of moral order. Chapter 5 examines the intrinsic connection between the concept of moral order and the epistemic role of faith. Kierkegaard’s treatment of the paradoxical aspects of faith as an event of epistemic access figures prominently in this analysis. Chapter 6 brings together the results of our analysis and applies them to the thesis that: the transformation of persons lies at the heart of evangelical ethics. The cosmology of faith emerges as a critical hermeneutical factor in the development of a doctrine of evangelical ethics. We explore here the doctrinal implications for Trinitarian theology. Chapter 7 draws out practical implications of our thesis. We see the central place of prayer and worship in evangelical ethics, and point out implications for teaching. Lastly, we show practical applications of our thesis by examining the bio-ethical issues of human reproductive technologies, with special attention to O’Donovan’s work, Begotten or Made?

La thèse entend montrer la dimension religieuse (perverse) présente dans l’idéologie nazie, et faire valoir ainsi l’importance de la lutte livrée par les théologiens allemands et français. Une première analyse des textes d’Alfred Rosenberg et d’Adolf Hitler fera donc ressortir les éléments religieux du nazisme. Les écrits théologiques de Paul Tillich et de Karl Barth feront voir ensuite la déformation démonique du « christianisme positif » proposé par les nazis. Enfin, les écrits et engagements de deux jésuites français, Pierre Chaillet et Gaston Fessard, montreront l’importance de la dimension théologique au sein de la résistance française.

Véritable théologoumène, l’imago Dei apparait comme un thème majeur de la théologie qui permet d’élaborer une anthropologie théologique. Aussi l’imago Dei a pu connaitre plusieurs interprétations dans l’histoire. Ainsi est-il est possible d’identifier deux grandes catégories d’anthropologies théologiques dans le christianisme contemporain : une anthropologie dite « substantialiste » et une anthropologie dite« relationnelle ». Selon l’anthropologie théologique que l’on rencontre le plus fréquemment, l’homme est défini par une propriété qui lui est commune avec Dieu comme l’intelligence ou la faculté d’aimer. Le but de cette thèse est de montrer, à travers le prisme de l’anthropologie relationnelle sans concession de Jean Ansaldi qui interroge sans cesse la légitimité même de l’imago Dei comme fondement biblique d’une anthropologie chrétienne, que cette anthropologie qui semble la plus classique n’est en fait qu’une parenthèse dans l’histoire du christianisme qui, de l’écriture de la Bible jusqu’à la théologie contemporaine, perçoit l’être humain avant tout comme vis-à-vis de Dieu, altérité représentant le Tout Autre, être qui est relation comme Dieu est en lui-même relation
Theologoumenon true, imago Dei appears as a major theme of theology that allows to develop a theologica anthropology. Imago Dei also could know several interpretations in history. Thus it is possible to identify two broad categories of theological anthropology in contemporary Christianity : a so-called "substantialist" anthropology and called "relational" anthropology. According to theological anthropology that the most frequently encountered, man is defined by a property that is common with God as the intelligence or the ability to love. The aim of this thesis is to show, through the prism of relational anthropology uncompromising Jean Ansaldi who constantly questions the legitimacy of imago Dei as a biblical foundation of a Christian anthropology, anthropology seems that the classic is actually a parenthesis in the history of Christianity, writing of the Bible to contemporary theology sees the human being as primarily vis-à-vis God alterity while representing the Other, which is being relationship as God is in himself relationship

The dissertation focuses on Karl Barth's theology as it relates to present issue in Evangelical thought. Chapter 1 states that an Evangelical theology of religions can affirm and apply particular aspects of Barth's doctrine of the Holy Spirit that will serve to redefine some present Evangelical approaches to the content of divine revelation. Chapter 2 surveys the theology of religions models constructed by Karl Rahner, Clark Pinnock, Amos Yong, and Terrance Tiessen. These scholars affirm in some respect that non-Christians need not have explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ and His work in order to appropriate the benefits of redemption. Chapter 3 examines Barth's trinitarian-oriented doctrine of revelation. For Barth, the doctrine ofthe Trinity provides the key to genuine divine revelation because revelation's content cannot be separated from its form in Jesus Christ. Chapter 4 addresses Barth's evaluation of the phenomenon of religion and natural theology. His attack on both concepts as human attempts to fashion God in their own image will be discussed. Chapter 5 will discuss and analyze the Christ-centered nature of Barth's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The discussion shows how for Barth the Holy Spirit is the sole mediator of Christ's presence who guides persons into objective knowledge of Christ and equips them for Christian service. Chapter 6 details Barth's use of secular "parables" of truth in the world in relation to the one Truth-Jesus Christ. The focus is how these "lights" of truth in creation never exist apart from Christ's reconciling work. Chapter 7 evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of Barth's thought as it relates to thesis of the work. Particular attention is given to Barth's rejection of general revelation and the doctrine of common grace as juxtaposed with the work of Herman Bavinck, whose thought is utilized as a useful alternative to Barth's thought in this area. Chapter 8 will conclude by briefly addressing Bavinck's position in contrast to Barth. Finally, the work seeks to reaffirm the thesis that use of selective aspects of Barth's thought can serve as an aid to on-going Evangelical efforts to formulate a viable theology of religions.

The thesis is a study of the political relevance of the views of Karl Barth on Church and State as they relate to the apartheid State in South Africa. In other words, the thesis deals with the part that should be played by the Church in opposing the demonic power of apartheid. Barth's allembracing theology could be used as a catalyst to expose the evil of apartheid and the way in which this evil could be eradicated, in preparation for a democratic order. In Chapter 1, the investigator argues in favour of the use of a methodology which takes praxis as its focus. This suggests that praxis develops theory and the latter informs praxis. Praxis and theory affect each other, thus creating a circular movement wherein both theory and praxis are both individually necessary (or the development of the other). In Chapter 2, the investigator again describes Barth's early theology. A predominant characteristic of Barth's early theology is its concern about the Word of God as incarnated in Jesus Christ, and the attempt to focus its attention on the plight of workers in the employ of the capitalistic system. As the thesis develops in chapter 3, the researcher further shows Barth's contributions to the struggle between the Church and National Socialism and between the Church and communism, more especially in the countries falling within the communistic bloc. In Chapter 4, the investigator focuses strongly on the struggle of the Church against the tenets of apartheid ideology, using Barth's theology as a mediating voice. At the end of the thesis in chapter 5, the investigator deems it necessary to make suggestions and recommendations to round off the argument begun in the first chapter. The suggestions and recommendations are subjected to what obtains in Barth's theological ethics on the relations between the Church and State. By so doing, the investigator suggests ways and means by which South Africans can successfully work out a constitution which will enable all people in South Africa to prepare themselves for a new dispensation.
Philosophy, Practical & Systematic Theology
D. Th. (Theological Ethics)

by Keith Ka-fu Chan.
Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1999.
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 94-99).
Abstracts in English and Chinese.
Chapter Chapter One --- Introduction --- p.1
Chapter 1.1. --- Karl Barth and Non-Christian Religions --- p.1
Chapter 1.2. --- "Karl Barth, Christological Anthropology and Confucianism " --- p.4
Chapter Chapter Two --- Barth's Christological Approach: A Historical Study --- p.9
Chapter 2.1. --- Introduction --- p.9
Chapter 2.2. --- Christology in the Making: From The Epistle to the Romans to Anselm --- p.9
Chapter 2.3. --- Christological Concentration: Church Dogmatics --- p.26
Chapter Chapter Three --- Barth's Anthropology: Man and Humanity --- p.31
Chapter 3.1. --- Introduction --- p.31
Chapter 3.2. --- Jesus Christ as the Starting Point --- p.32
Chapter 3.3. --- Real Man: The Ontological Relationship between God and Human --- p.36
Chapter 3.4. --- Real Humanity: Being-With-the-Other --- p.41
Chapter 3.5. --- Real Man as Redeemed Man: Human Being in the Doctrine of Reconciliation --- p.46
Chapter 3.6. --- Conclusion --- p.49
Chapter Chapter Four --- Barth's Christology: Jesus' Humanity --- p.50
Chapter 4.1. --- Introduction --- p.50
Chapter 4.2. --- Jesus Christ as the Electing God and Elected Man: Humanity in the Barth's Doctrine of Election --- p.50
Chapter 4.2.1. --- Doctrine of Election as the Doctrine of God Himself --- p.50
Chapter 4.2.2. --- Jesus Christ as the Electing God and Elected Man --- p.53
Chapter 4.2.3. --- Humanity in the Doctrine of Election --- p.55
Chapter 4.3. --- Barth's Doctrine of the Humanity of Jesus Christ --- p.60
Chapter 4.3.1. --- The Antiochene and Alexandrian Christologies --- p.60
Chapter 4.3.2. --- The Chalcedonian Formula and its Limitation --- p.64
Chapter 4.3.3. --- Barth's idea of Anhypostatic-Enhypostatic Christology --- p.66
Chapter Chapter Five --- Karl Barth's Christological Anthropology in Dialogue with Confucianism --- p.73
Chapter 5.1. --- Introduction --- p.73
Chapter 5.2. --- The Anthropological and Christological Discourses in Christian-Confucian Dialogue --- p.74
Chapter 5.3. --- A Critique of Kim's Understanding of Barth's Anthropology --- p.82
Chapter 5.4. --- Karl Barth's Christological Anthropology and Christian-Confucian Dialogue --- p.85
Chapter 5.4.1. --- Real Man --- p.85
Chapter 5.4.2. --- Real Humanity --- p.86
Chapter 5.4.3. --- God's Election --- p.87
Chapter 5.4.4. --- The Divinity and Humanity of Jesus Christ --- p.88
Chapter Chapter Six --- Concluding Reflection --- p.90
Bibliography --- p.94