Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
In the following discussion I wish to demonstrate the basic homogeneity of Barth's thinking on the relationship between Divine self-disclosure and Religion. In order to restrict the discussion, reference will be made to the second edition of the commentary on Romans, the first volume of the Church Dogmatics, the essays: ‘The Humanity of God’and ‘The Christian Understanding of Revelation’, and volume four of the Dogmatics— for if there has been a significant change in the structure of Barth's thinking, one must expect to find such evidence in these basic sources. While the primary aim is to explore the relationship between Revelation and Religion, the discussion must necessarily take into consideration a number of secondary relationships which impinge upon the central theme at certain places. These secondary relationships as it happens, vary in accordance with the dialogical situation in which Barth formulates his argument. In Romans for example, the resurrection of Jesus occupies a pivotal position, but in the first volume of the Dogmatics he has shifted his attention to the significance of the Incarnation. Again, however, at the closing stages of volume four attention has swung back to the importance and relevance of the resurrection for Christian faith.
page 1 note 1 Oxford, 1933 (hereinafter referred to as Romans).
page 1 note 2 Edinburgh, 1936 (vol. I/I); 1956 (vol. I/II)—referred to as Dogmatics.
page 1 note 3 London, 1961 (paperback, 1967).
page 1 note 4 An essay in Against the Stream (London, 1954).
page 3 note 1 See Kierkegaard's, On Authority and Revelation (New York, 1966), pp. 192–193.Google Scholar
page 4 note 1 op. cit., p. 29.
page 4 note 2 ibid., p. 422.
page 6 note 1 ibid., p. 268: ‘Religion breaks men into two halves.’
page 7 note 1 ibid., p. 246 and p. 247.
page 7 note 2 ibid., pp. 257ff and p. 266f, for Barth's rejection of Schleiermacher's argument about Religion. See also p. 276f.
page 7 note 3 For a case in point see Kraemer's, Religion and the Christian Faith (London, 1956), pp. 182ff.Google Scholar
page 7 note 4 Revolutionary Theology in the Making (London, 1964), p. 55.Google Scholar
page 8 note 1 London, 1960.
page 8 note 2 ibid., p. 18.
page 8 note 3 ibid., pp. 102–3.
page 8 note 4 ibid., pp. 39–41, for the way in which Barth believes ‘human’ words can become ‘God-inspired’ words.
page 8 note 5 ibid., pp. 46–47.
page 8 note 6 ibid., pp. 47–50.
page 9 note 1 Dogmatics vol. I/I, p. 340.
page 9 note 2 ibid., p. 133, for Barth's definition of ‘Revelation’. See also pp. 363ff for the different ways in which Barth intends to use Revelation.
page 10 note 1 This also means taking into account vol. III/I (1958). See pp. 59ff.
page 11 note 1 Barth's rejection of Troeltsch. See Ogletree, T. W., Christian Faith and History (New York, 1965).Google Scholar
page 11 note 2 See Parker, T. H. L., ‘Barth on Revelation’, S.J.T., vol. 13.4 (1960), pp. 366ff.Google Scholar
page 11 note 3 Dogmatics, I/II, pp. 45–66.
page 12 note 1 Dogmatics, I/I, p. x.
page 12 note 2 The disagreement between Barth, and Brunner, is set out in Natural Theology (London, 1946), especially pp. 74ff.Google Scholar
page 12 note 3 For a treatment of the stages in the development of Barth's understanding of the Imago Dei see Come, A. B., An Introduction to Barth's Dogmatics for Preachers (London, 1963)Google Scholar, and Hartwell, H., ‘The Teaching of Karl Barth on the Imago Dei’, The Presbyter, vol. 5.4.Google Scholar
page 12 note 4 Zahrnt, H., The Question of God (London, 1969), pp. 98ff.Google Scholar
page 14 note 1 cf. also Dogmatics I/II, p. 327 and p. 344.
page 15 note 1 The Humanity of God, pp. 34ff.
page 16 note 1 Elevation, which is synonymous with reconciliation, belongs to the character of true Religion.
page 17 note 1 op. cit., Against the Stream, p. 235.
page 17 note 2 ibid., p. 188.
page 19 note 1 ‘Towards a Theology of Religions’, Japanese Religions, vol. 4.3 (1966), p. 13.
page 20 note 1 Although Barth strove to achieve a dialectical balance between Revelation and Religion, the overall emphasis in vol. I is negative; the positive side is emphasised in vol. IV.
page 21 note 1 Kraemer, H., The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (London, 1938), pp. 101ffGoogle Scholar; see also Kraemer's, speech at Tambaram in The Authority of Faith (London, 1939), pp. 1ffGoogle Scholar. See also Bleeker, C. J., Christ in Modern Athens (London, 1966), pp. 91ff.Google Scholar
page 21 note 2 McIntyre, J., The Shape of Christology (London, 1966), pp. 157ffGoogle Scholar
page 21 note 3 Downing, F. G., Has Christianity a Revelation? (London, 1964), pp. 10ff.Google Scholar
page 21 note 4 Dogmatics, I/I, p. 98.
page 21 note 5 ibid., pp. 99ff.
page 22 note 1 op. cit., Downing, p. 17. See also Barr, J., Old and New in Interpretation (London, 1966), p. 90f and p. 95fGoogle Scholar, and his article on ‘Revelation’ in Grant, F. C. and Rowley, H. H., Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 847–849Google Scholar. For a slightly different treatment of this theme see Aagaard, J., ‘Revelation and Religion’, Studia Theologica, vol. XIV (1960), pp. 148–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Vlijm, J. M., Het Relibiegrip van Karl Barth (s'Gravenhage, 1956), pp. 18ff and p. 33ffGoogle Scholar. This article is a revised form of two chapters in the writer's Birmingham Ph.D. thesis Christianity, India, and the Problem of Revelation (1969).
