If it is not Moltmann, then Moltmann has sure move the ball down the field. About twenty years ago it was usual to introduce studies on the Holy Spirit with a complaint about 'forgetfulness of the Spirit' at the present day generally, and in Protestant theology in particular.
The Holy Spirit was said to be the Cinderella of Western theology. So it had to be specially cherished and coaxed into a growth of its own.
This was undoubtedly a reaction against a particular kind of 'neo-orthodoxy' in the Protestant churches, as well as a counterweight to the christocentricism of Karl Barth's theology, and the theology of the Barmen Declaration of the Confessing Church. So one of Barth's own last words was always quoted: he dreamed, he said, of a new theology which would begin with the third article of the creed and would realize in a new way the real concern of his old opponent, Schleiermacher.
Minneapolis: Fortress, Name required. Email required. Comments 2 Trackbacks 0 subscribe to comments on this post. Jonathan February 1st, - I asked.
The scholar admitted that lack of interest in Barth was probably due to the pressures placed on European professors to present original research. Certainly, many likely see Barth as being too tied to the conventional and traditional theological formulations of patristic theology, what with his preference for the ancient jargon of Christ as one person with two natures, or of the Spirit of God proceeding from the Father, yes, and also from the Son filioque! This past December 10, was the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Karl Barth.
http://ocoo.staging.ctrlweb.ca/origami-5-fifth-international-meeting-of.php If interest in Barth appears to have abated in his hometown, worldwide attention to the theologian is stronger than ever. And where must we exercise caution? In my view, Karl Barth stands as the exemplar par excellence for exhibiting a consistently Christ-centred approach to theology.
For Barth, all theological and religious roads do not lead to Jesus Christ, but all paths of Christian inquiry necessarily must proceed from Jesus Christ if they are to be truly Christian utterances. Barth, in other words, never tired of seeking the answer: What must we say about [insert topic] in view of the person of Jesus Christ?
Indeed, Barth is rather clear in stating that Christ's humility is "a free choice made [ This implies that the election of Jesus Christ is part of God's eternal life, as is the "divine-human history enacted in Jesus". Since Barth never completed a structured "doctrine of Redemption" the "future of reconciliation", operated by the Spirit , 67 the characterising features of his Pneumatology should be traced to his Trinitarian and Christological expositions. Volume 14 , Issue 3 July Pages For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now. Visit Help Center. Taylor 34; ; Molnar and Hunsinger cf.
And that seems to me the right way to do theology. That may sound awfully conventional today.
But we need to remember that in his day Barth was reacting to modes of theology oriented around insights garnered in the study of human nature, religious ritual and history, philosophy, or even poetic mystical insights. God alone can speak for himself, and he does so in and through Jesus Christ alone.
Despite the burgeoning literature on Karl Barth, his doctrine of the Holy Spirit continues to be under-appreciated by his friends and critics alike. Yet, while Barth's. Karl Barth on the Filioque (Barth Studies) [David Guretzki] on consrenfconpedi.tk *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Despite the burgeoning literature on Karl Barth.
For Barth, theology is neither an exercise of repeating divine truths fallen into our laps in written form i. Rather, theology seeks to think and speak thoughts after God who personally came down from above in Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ, to be sure, is not merely an historical referent spoken of in dead texts, but a living, resurrected and ascended Lord who continues to speak afresh by his Spirit in and through the living Holy Scripture to the Church today.
As much as I have been apt in the past twenty years to appeal to my theological peers to learn deeply from Barth, I also do so with critical caution. Scholarly appropriation of Barth has multiplied, often in contradictory ways.
On the one hand, theologians seeking post-modern, post-propositional, or radical theologies of gender, and those seeking to repristinate patristic or Reformed sources on the other hand have both oddly found inspiration in Barth.