Search Results

This chapter presents a synthesis of the preceding discussions on the theological development of Karl Barth. Through all the phases of his development, Barth was a critically realistic dialectical theologian. All of his efforts in theology may be considered as an attempt to overcome Kant by means of Kant; not retreating behind him and seeking to go around him, but through him. It is important to note that however critical Barth may have been of modern theology, the form in which he taught dialectical theology was a thoroughly modern option.

This introductory chapter begins with a discussion on how the interpretation of Karl Barth’s theological development has been dominated by Hans Urs von Balthasar’s book, Karl Barth: Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theologie (1951) for over forty years. It identifies three studies that have challenged von Balthasar’s thesis: Eberhard Jüngel’s ‘Von der Dialektik zur Analogie’, Ingrid Spieckermann’s Gotteserkenntnis, and Michael Beintker’s Die Dialektik in der’dialektischen Theologie. A new paradigm for interpreting Barth’s development is then presented.

This chapter explores the factors that influenced Karl Barth’s shift from the process eschatological model which stamped Romans I to the consistent eschatology of Romans II. The influence of his philosopher brother Heinrich Barth and Franz Overbeck was more important than that of Søren Kierkegaard. From Kierkegaard, Barth learned a style of communication, an attitude, and the Kierkegaardian understanding of the paradoxicality of the incarnation.

This chapter provides a synthesis of the ‘Reformation of Common Learning’, which progressively developed from Peter Ramus’s pedagogy in the mid-sixteenth century to the work of the Moravian Comenius in the mid-seventeenth. The essay stretches the traditional periodisation and disciplinary boundaries often applied to reformation studies. By implication, it calls into question the understanding of a seventeenth-century ‘post-reformation’ era, a point underscored by mid-seventeenth-century writers such as Milton who spoke of reform as a continuous process. The wider intellectual currents that were contemporaneous to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theological developments become essential to understanding the reception of reformation.

A great deal of attention is given to the revised version of Barth’s prolegomena lectures published in 1927 under the title Die christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf in treatments of Barth’s development. However, a synchronic comparison, section by section, of all three versions of the prolegomena (the Göttingen and Münster versions together with Church Dogmatics I/I and I/2) shows the extent of which the fundamental decisions which control even the Church Dogmatics I/I and I/2 were already made in 1924-25 in Göttingen. This chapter discusses the events and works which influenced decisions made by Barth.

This chapter explores the “christocentrism” in Barth’s theology. For Barth, “christocentrism” refers to the attempt to understand every doctrine from a centre in God’s Self-revelation in Jesus Christ. “Christocentrism” was a methodological rule, and not a priori principle. It is shown that a lecture by Parisian pastor Pierre Maury on the subject of election paved the way for a form of “christocentrism” synonymous with the name of Karl Barth.

The concluding chapter summarizes the main findings and reasserts the primary thesis regarding the essential need to consider the influences of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Ernst Hengstenberg, and the mediating theologians on nineteenth-century Reformed theology in the United States. It briefly reviews the evidence indicating that American scholars were simultaneously receptive, inspired, and reactionary in their responses to German theology. The chapter also reaffirms the primary assertion that a transatlantic approach is required to bring into sharper focus the theological ideas and contexts of the Reformed theologies of Emanuel Gerhart and Charles Hodge, and that it is necessary to have a thorough understanding of European intellectual ideas to fully comprehend Reformed theology in America.

Stephen J. Stein focuses on Jonthan Edwards’ treatment of a figure in the New Testament, the Virgin Mary. He highlights a striking irony in Edwards’ exegesis by juxtaposing his steady criticism of the Roman Catholic Church against his high praise of Mary. Stein’s essay is driven by immersion in Edwards’ biblical notebooks, which gives readers a taste of Edwards’ engagement with the Bible and his subsequent theological development from that exegesis. Stein especially highlights how Edwards linked the Virgin Mary to the life of Jesus Christ and the larger story of salvation. Although this question clearly centers on the New Testament, Edwards brings Old Testament passages to bear on it, which illustrates his canonical approach to interpreting Scripture.