Doctorat en thรฉologie or PhD or Both?

Posted on by

I’ve been doing some research on what my degree is formally identified as at Lโ€™Universitรฉ de Genรจve (the University of Geneva). What will show on my diploma, once I complete the degree (Lord willing) is: Doctorat en thรฉologie. Obviously, this is the French, which is the official language at the University of Geneva. If it were to be formally equivalently translated into English, it would be: Doctor in Theology (ThD or DTh). If it were to be dynamically equivalently translated into English, it would be: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in theology. On the English site at the UG’s Faculty of Protestant Theology page it translates it using the dynamic equivalent: PhD in theology. But at the same time it also identifies it as: Doctorat en thรฉologie. In German speaking theological faculties they are awarded the: Doctor Theologiae (they use the Latin). They abbreviate theirs to: Dr. theol. But it too, like my forthcoming degree from Geneva, can be and often is dynamically translated as: PhD in theology. Ultimately, it is a matter of preference and audience. Typically I see German language school graduates using the Dr. theol. nomenclature. What I’m coming to find out is that in the Francophone world they don’t abbreviate it and just call it: Doctorat en thรฉologie. But I have also seen graduates from Francophone schools using PhD in Anglophone contexts. This way, folks in the English speaking contexts will understand that the holder of said degree has a PhD equivalent degree from their home-country, even if it is called something else. In France proper they just designate their PhD equivalent degrees: Doctorat (like from the University of Paris, Sorbonne etc.)

Since my diploma will say (when it is completed): Doctorat en thรฉologie, I will go with that on official things like CVs and such. I will probably use the PhD designation in certain contexts as well. But I kind of like having the distinct nomenclature used by the Francophone Swiss school it is being pursued at. I’m nerding out here, I know. It’s what I do at times.

Posted in PhD

On Barth’s Affirmation of Anselm’s ‘Proof of God’ and Rejection of A Natural Theology

Posted on by

Being oppositional to natural theology is a hallmark of Karl Barthโ€™s theological posture. His primary rejection of a natural theology isnโ€™t a result of his socio-politico atmosphere in the Reich of Germany per se; even though it has application towards the type of Nationalistic Socialism that characterized Adolf Hitlerโ€™s vision of the golden age of Germany. Barth rejected natural theology for theological reasons; i.e., theological-anthropological reasons. He maintained a radical commitment to the reformational notion of the total depravity of humanity; albeit, in an Athanasian key. This commitment is best illustrated by his collegial correspondences, and even debates with Catholic German theologian, Erich Przywara. Przywara, was a modern advocate, and constructive builder, indeed, a retriever of the classical Thomistic analogia entis (โ€˜analogy of beingโ€™). Przywara ultimately argued from something like a capaciousness left in fallen humanity, as if a residual spark continued to burn within the intellect; which when perfected by grace, even preveniently or objectively so, would allow fallen human beings to build an intellectual cathedral wherein its spire might reach into the heavens and touch the feet of God. But of course, this was a speculative measure by which human beings reason by a series of negations from their finite beings to its primary and first cause in the infinite being, the unmoved mover, who is, in the Przywaran frame, the God of Jesus Christ. Barth retorted to such machination with a loud Nein, such that the canton church bells in Basel were made to ring out.

Barth offered his own reading on thinking God. This has been identified by such theologians as Eberhard Juengal et al. as the analogia fidei -/relationis (analogy of faith -/relation). Barth contended that there was such a qualitative disjunction between God and humanity that outwith Godโ€™s invasion, His descending into the fallen world, outwith His assumptio carnis (assumption of flesh) it would be nigh impossible for human beings to begin to even imagine the living and triune God; let alone โ€˜knowโ€™ this God. What was required in Barthโ€™s estimation was that God enter into the garb of our humanity, by becoming human Himself in Jesus Christ, and to do so unto the point of death; even death on the cross. Barth maintains that it was only this type of the dissolution of fallen humanity, and then via its resurrection in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that humanity by the Holy Spirit, in union with Christโ€™s humanity (spiritually), might come to have a correspondence of faith, with Christโ€™s faith, through Christโ€™s relationship to humanity mediated through His humanity, and in turn, through His human nature in inseparable relationship with the divine Logos, who is the ground of Christโ€™s singular person, that humanity could ever have a center in God to rightly know God by.

With the aforementioned noted, Anthony Feneuil offers a helpful reading on how Barth engaged with Anselmโ€™s so-called โ€˜ontological proofโ€™ for the existence of God. As Feneuil shows, Barth could affirm Anselmโ€™s proof without collapsing it into something like the analogia entis presented by Przywara et al. So, how could Barth affirm a โ€˜proofโ€™ for Godโ€™s existence, without falling prey to his own critique of an analogia entis (which is a subset of a natural theology simplicter)? Feneuil writes (in extenso):

According to Barth, Anselmโ€™s proof is not natural theology. Anselm never places himself on the โ€”supposedly common to the believer and the unbelieverโ€”ground of natural reason. The definition of God Anselm gives at the beginning of the Proslogion is not, says Barth, a definition in the strict sense of the term but, rather, a confession of faith. It does not define the nature of God but acknowledges a divine command, actually the first of the Ten Commandments (โ€œYou shall have no other gods before meโ€): โ€œWe believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought.โ€ It is not about the abstract essence of God, but about the relation of lordliness between the revealed God and Godโ€™s creatures. Anselm does not place himself on the foolโ€™s ground, he does not think on the same level. And the proof does not primarily prove the existence of God but, rather, the fact that, on the ground of this lordliness relationship that God initiated, it is not even possible for us to imagine, even as a mere hypothesis, the inexistence of God. The mere hypothesis of the nonexistence does not fit God. In that respect as well, God is very differentย  from any other object of the world (very different from a hundredโ€“euro note, for instance). Therefore, Anselmโ€™s proof is not an ontological proof, that is, a proof that would go from Godโ€™s essence in thought of Godโ€™s actual existence. It is not a proof in which human thought is above God, in which human thought decides about Godโ€™s existence. It is the other way around: the proof aims at showing, from the revealed name of God, that human thought cannot establish itself as a spectator above God. The proof shows that human thought, in relation to God, is unescapably limited.

Therefore, one could say that, in a sense, the proof aims precisely at negating the possibility of any natural theology, understood as a human attempt to escape the relation of obedience to God, and to establish oneself in the position of being able to make judgments about Godโ€™s existence, just as about the existence of any object. It is a proof that declares our wisdom as a folly before God. Hence, the insipiens, in Barthโ€™s reading of Anselmโ€”that is, the one who does not understand the proofโ€”is not only the one who denies the existence of God, but also the one who tries to establish this existence on purely rational grounds. Who, then, is the insipiens? He is Descartes, not less than Kant, because when Descartes attempts to ground the certainty of Godโ€™s existence exclusively on human reason, he believes that he can consider God as a thought object similar to others, whose existence can always be put into bracket. Insofar, he is an insipiens: he believes that one can talk about God as about a thing or an absent person, using a third-person discourse, whereas one cannot talk about God without talking to God. Consequently, there is no fundamental difference between Anselmโ€™s insipiens and Paulโ€™s fool: both refer to those who do not acknowledge the foolishness of their own wisdom, but neither Anselmโ€™s incipiens [sic.] nor Paulโ€™s fool refer to the one who cannot reason well, for any contingent cause.[1]

If Feneuil is correct in his reading of Barth, and there is no reason to think otherwise, we can see, even in Barthโ€™s reading on Anselmโ€™s โ€˜proofโ€™ how Barthโ€™s rejection of a natural theology was operative. Ultimately, I would contend, Barth sees natural theology, and its subset in the analogia entis, as foolish because it attempts to decenter Godโ€™s ontology with fallen humanityโ€™s; i.e., by asserting that there remains a residual foundation within the intellect of fallen humanity whereby knowledge of the true and living God has been retained; even if it might need a drop of Godโ€™s created grace to jumpstart it.

[1] Anthony Feneuil, โ€œThe Cross of Wisdom: Ambiguities in Turning Down Apologetics (Paul, Anselm, Barth),โ€ in Christophe Chalamet and Hansโ€“Christoph Askani, eds., The Wisdom and Foolishness of God: First Corinthians 1โ€”2 In Theological Exploration (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 174โ€“75.

Martin Luther’s Centraldogma, ‘Faith Alone’ by Barth

Posted on by

Martin Luther preaches in the pulpit, pointing to the crucified Jesus. Among the audience, are his wife Katherina von Bora with the little son and Lucas Cranach the Elder. Woodcut engraving after a painting from the predella (bottom of the altarpiece) of a triptychon (1547) in the church at Wittenberg by Lucas Cranach the Younger (German painter, 1515 – 1586), published in 1881.

Is there a centraldogma for the Protestant Reformation? It depends on what angle we attempt to answer that question by. For Martin Luther, per Barthโ€™s lights et alia, the foundation for his reformational work was the doctrine of justification (sola fide). For Luther, according to Barth, this was the great differentiator between what became Protestantism versus the Latin Catholic churchโ€™s position on justification; which would entail a cooperative matrix in the God-human relation (gratia infusa). After Luther read the Greek New Testament for himself, he realized the synergistic salvation that Roma propounded was contradicted by the perspicacious teaching of Scripture alone. Barth offers some rich insight on how he sees this centraldogma operative for Luther:

It was again Luther, above all others, who obviously regarded and described the doctrine of justification as the Word of the Gospel. To him it was not merely the decisive point, the hub, as it were, of the whole of Evangelical theology in controversy with the Romanists. It was this, in the sense of the Schmalkaldic Articles of 1537 (Bek.-Schr. der ev.-luth. Kirche, 415 f.)โ€”in which it is called the first and principial article in this special sense: โ€œIn relation to this article we cannot doubt or yield an inch, though heaven and earth or all things passing may fall . . . . On this article stands all that we teach and live against the Papacy, the devil and the devil prevail against us.โ€ The fact that Luther linked together the Papacy, the devil and the world shows us, however, that Luther was not thinking merely in terms of the polemic against Rome. In the praefatio to the 1535 Galatians we are told immediately before the passage quoted earlier: That one article reigns in my heart, namely the article of faith in Christ, by which, in which, and through which all my theological reflections flow back and forth by day and by night. If the doctrine is flourishing, then will flourish all good things, religion, true worship, the glory of God, and assured knowledge of all conditions and matters (l.c., 39). Then in the argumentum of the same commentary we read (l.c., 48, 28): If the article of justification is lost, then the whole of Christian doctrine is lost at the same time. And on Gal. 1.3 (l.c., 72, 20): If the article of justification lies in ruins, then all lies in ruins. Therefore, it is necessary that we sharpen it (in the manner in which Moses spoke of the Law) and cram it in. For it cannot be understood and held enough or too much. According to Lutherโ€™s exposition of Gal. 2.20 (l.c., 296, 23) this article and this article alone has the power to refute all sects, anabaptists and sacramentarians, etc., seeing that they are all at error in relation to it. Moreover, it is by the position on justification that Christianity is distinguished from all other religions: For only Christians believe this doctrine and are righteous not because of what they themselves do, but because they receive the works of another, that is, the passion of Christ (Schol. on Is. 53.2f., 1534, W.A. 25, 329, 15; 330, 8). And in the same context (l.c., 332): this doctrine is the basis of the New Testament, from which, as from an open fountain, all the treasures of the divine wisdom flow. Similarly in 1537 Luther could open a disputation (W.A. 39.1, 205, 2) with the words: The article of justification is master and emperor, Lord, ruler and judge over all kinds of doctrines, and it preserves and steers all the churchโ€™s doctrine. If it does not know and consider this article, the human reason is defenceless against the vainest errors. But a mind which is strengthened by it will stand against all their assaults. The dominating role which Luther assigned to the matter in his own sermons and other works corresponds to these declarations of principle. The well-known description of the doctrine as the article by which the church stands or falls does not seem to derive from Luther himself, but it is an exact statement of his view. He found in it the one point which involved the whole.[1]

As Barth has illustrated, rather definitively, Luther saw the doctrine of justification as the watershed locus of all that mattered for the Church of Jesus Christ. For, if the Church gets the Gospel wrong, then what type of Church is one left with?

Once this spark lit on fire Lutherโ€™s affections his reformation was underway. It wasnโ€™t the 95 theses on the Wittenberg churchโ€™s door that was motivating Lutherโ€”that is on the matter of the indulgences, per se, even as that was directly relatable to this matterโ€”it went into the theoanthropological roots of the teaching of the New Testament itself. What was required for humanity to be justified before God? What in fact, were the fundamental entailments of the Gospel? Was it what the Latin church had taught Luther the Augustinian monk; the gratia infusa way? Or was it instead the iustitia aliena (alien righteousness) of Jesus Christ which when the would-be believer comes into union with Christ, by faith alone and grace alone (sola fide sola gratia), all of these benefits of Christโ€™s person and work become theirs? For Luther, and for the other reformers, it was clearly the latter; it was solo Christo (Christ alone). Soli Deo Gloria

[1] Karl Barth,ย Church Dogmatics IV/1 ยง61 [521โ€“22] The Doctrine of Reconciliation: Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 8โ€“9.

A Theology of the Cross Contra Metaphysics

Posted on by

What role should metaphysics play towards developing a Christian theology? How many speculations added together equal a composite picture of a simple God? If Godโ€™s face (prosopon) is in the cradle of the philosophers; if their respective machinations and categories become the womb within which the Theanthropos (Godman) is gestated; how might we be sure that we are in fact encountering the living God at all; that is, in the face of Jesus Christ? Can the metaphysics, torn out of the vestiges of the created order, be deployed in an effort to grammarize God in intelligible ways for us? Or maybe there is a better way; an โ€œevangelized metaphysic?โ€

Conversely, the Christian doesnโ€™t come to the faith of a metaphysical actual being of pure act (actus purus); a monad, as it were. The Christian, the non-Christian on the street is encountered by the man cloaked in the veil of the flesh of a despised man; a man of sorrows acquainted with grief. This doesnโ€™t cohere well with a God of the Metaphysics. But the so-called โ€˜Great Traditionโ€™ says that the metaphysical god is the only God that might give us the goods in regard to having a point of intelligible and meaningful contact with Godness. Is this so? The Dominical teaching and life of Jesus Christ deposited for us in the New Testament says otherwise, I would contend; and so, would, Dr. Martin (Luther). Note Jaroslav Pelikanโ€™s thinking with reference to Lutherโ€™s theologia crucis:

The Theology of the Cross

Although Luther himself never wrote a full-length exposition of his entire theology and, even when he undertook โ€œto confess [his] faith before God and all the world, point by point,โ€ did not present a system so much as a series of statements, he did find a term to characterize his system of thought. Contrasting, the theologian falsely so called, โ€œwho looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened,โ€ with the authentic theologian, โ€œwho comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross,โ€ he labeled the first system โ€œa theology of gloryโ€ and the second โ€œa theology of the cross,โ€ or, in the phrase of Hugh Latimer, โ€œthat religion that has the cross annexed to it.โ€

ย At the basis of the theology of the cross was the proposition that โ€œGod can be found only in suffering and the cross,โ€ so that โ€œhe who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering.โ€ In a similar vein the early Melanchthon declared that โ€œto know Christ is to know his benefits.โ€ The polemical target of both these propositions was a theological method that the authors attributed to scholasticism, which treated the truths of the Christian faith as objects of intellectual curiosity without reference to the cross and the benefits of Christ. Specifically, the dogmas of the Trinity and the person of Christ were not an exercise in logical inquiry or metaphysical speculation. Luther ridiculed the scholastics for investigating the relation between the two natures of Christ and branded such investigation as โ€œsophistic.โ€ โ€œWhat difference does that make to me?โ€ he continued. โ€œThat he is man and God by nature, that he has for his own self; but that he has exercised his office and poured out his love, becoming my Savior and Redeemerโ€”that happens for my consolation and benefit.โ€ For, as Luther said in a sermon on 1525, Christ was not called โ€œChristโ€ because he had two natures, but because of his office as Savior. And Melanchthon attacked the scholastics for โ€œobscuring the glory and the benefits of Christโ€ despite the formal correctness of their doctrine about the person of Christ.[1]

Far from having a diminished view of Christโ€™s person, christologically, Luther had an elevated view in the sense that he understood that the value of Christ for the world, the primacy of Christ for all of life, was that He was God for us in the very face of a man. It is here, in the kerygma (the announcement of the Good News) where the wisdom and knowledge of God is on display for all of humanity; for whomever will. This knowledge of God is not an abstract, speculative foment by which the theologian reasons their way back to the Actual Infinite. Nein, for Luther, the Christian God is fulsome for the โ€˜beggars all.โ€™

In light of the above, would you continue to maintain that the God of the metaphysicians is really the God Self-revealed for the world in Jesus Christ? Or would you agree with me that some abstractions, with reference to truly knowing God, only lead us full circle back to the prying imaginations of sinful man; into things that such imaginations have no real access to?

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan,ย The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300โ€”1700), Volume 4ย (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1977), 155โ€“56.

You Don’t Even Know What the Word Reformed Means!

Posted on by

Years ago, I would write on Reformed identity frequently. I have mostly lost interest in that. But at points my interest is once again piqued. For some strange reason I continue to visit X (formerly known as Twitter), and in the environs my algorithm leads me to I often come across people debating the virtues, or deficits, of Calvinism and/or non-Calvinism (Arminianism etc.). The constant orienting premise of these exchanges is that Calvinism or Reformed theology just is the 5 Points (TUILIP), or just is Westminster styled federal (covenantal) theology; within what Richard Muller identifies as Christian Aristotelianism. But I think if you think this way that you shouldnโ€™t be commenting on Reformed theology, one way or the other (whether you are a self-professing Reformed person or a non-Reformed person). If you believe that what I just mentioned above is absolutely reflective of the whole Reformed theological development, then why should anyone take you seriously on anything else you might say about said tradition? If you just believe that Reformed theology is a monolithic tradition without baskets of doctrinal complexes and variation within its reality as a theological tradition, then you have no business engaging in the banter that typically attends โ€˜yourโ€™ online and offline exchanges with reference to what you believe is representative of the Reformed faith.

Iโ€™m Reformed. But I donโ€™t fit any of the categories you reduce the Reformed tradition into. There are even early Reformed expressions that donโ€™t fit the categories you reduce the Reformed trad into. You can find those everywhere (regionally, during Reformed theologyโ€™s developments). Some people in an ad hoc way will assert that only โ€˜confessional Reformed theologyโ€™ is representative of what it means to be Reformed. Okay, which confessions must be affirmed, and who decides what those are? Should the Reformed confessions, regional statements that they were and remain, be received in something like the โ€˜Three Forms of Unity?โ€™ Some think so. But why not just receive the various confessions per your churchโ€™s theological needs? This in fact was the initial motivation behind the development of the Reformed confessions; i.e., to meet the regional needs of this or that Reformed church or cluster of churches.

Furthermore, as we have illustrated with our books on Evangelical Calvinism, there are in fact other Reformed expressions beyond and even contemporaneous with (as far as development) what people take Reformed theology to be today. None of this was done in a corner. Anyone familiar with church history and historical theology ought to know that the Reformed tradition comes in a stereoscopic fling of doctrinal variation, emphases, and categories. For example, I am Reformed, but more so of a modern development. Clearly, I work within an after Barth after TF Torrance expression; even a Calvinian one. Just because someone from a Westminster styled Presbyterian church in the 21st century might claim that only they are part of the succession of the truly Reformed church doesnโ€™t make that assertion so. Particularly because the very essence of the Reformed faith is to be a tradition always already reforming by the dictates of and engagement with Holy Scripture. The Reformed faith proper recognizes that its principled ground is the Word of God, indeed, in contact with its reality, the living Word, Jesus Christ. Because of this, principially, the Reformed faith, whilst coming with a particular character, is never a static but dynamic and organic Christian reality and expression of the faith.

I simply want to register, once again, that there are no gatekeepers for the Reformed expression of the Christian reality. There are certain boundaries, which surely include the Reformed confessions and catechisms, but with an understanding and reception of those such that they are actively subordinate to Scriptureโ€™s reality (and not just in word only). Further, as alluded to earlier, the Reformed tradition is an expansive expression which is entailed by the fact that in its history and development it has various eddies, expressions, and exemplars. Next time you think that you know what the word โ€œReformedโ€ signifies, make sure you are humble enough to recognize that it might, and in fact does have a greater valent than what you probably think it does (this will of course vary from person to person, and their understanding of these things).

God’s Wrath in the Theology of Karl Barth: The Theologian’s Theologian

Posted on by

Karl Barth is often accused (erroneously so) of being a liberal theologian. This mistakenly happens under the neo-orthodox label, as if, at best, maybe a soft form of theological liberalism. And yet, Barth is more critical of theological liberalism than most of the so-called Reformed and Lutheran critics of Barth in the 21st century. Barth was more intimately related to, and formed by the mediating and liberal theologians, in direct ways, much beyond his critics today (and yesterday). The whole premise of Barthโ€™s radical shift was in response to what he finally perceived as theological slop, in regard to the theological liberalism he had been trained under. He realized, famously, from his pulpit in Safenwil, that the theological pablum he had been fed in his university training, was just that. It had no real power, no grist or grit in the face of the fallout produced by WW1. As a result, he famously took such theology to task, initially, in his commentary on Romans (Der Rรถmerbrief), and finally, in his Church Dogmatics.

What I want to highlight in this brief article is how false the aforementioned is. Barth, whilst radically, or consistently, following the Protestant Scripture Principle, brought critique against both theological liberalism, scholasticism Reformed, and much of the medieval harvest, that all, just the same, promoted portraits of God that ran afoul of the simple teaching and witness found in Holy Scripture. In this instance, in the example I am culling forward for this article, you will see how Barth might even sound like a conservative Reformed theologian of today (okay, Iโ€™m stretching thatโ€”heโ€™s better). Here we see Barthโ€™s commentary on Godโ€™s wrath:

To the critics of the term โ€œwrath of Godโ€ and especially A. Ritschl (Rechtf. u. Vers., II, ยง 16 f.) were quite wrong when they said that โ€œwrathโ€ is not a quality or activity or attitude which can be explained in the light of Godโ€™s being, or brought into harmony with His love and grace. In reply to this criticism we have to say plainly that the grace of God would not be grace if it were separated from the holiness in which God causes only His own and therefore His good will to prevail and be done, holding aloof from and opposing everything that is contrary to it, judging and excluding and destroying everything that resists it. And grace would not be free grace if it were bound to any single form of its appearance and manifestation, if God always had to show Himself monotonously as โ€œlove,โ€ or what we think of as love, if He were not permitted to negate that which has to be negated, if He could not conceal Himself when He is resisted, revealing His grace only in the alien form of unwillingness and wrath. Above all, grace would not be grace, the serious and effective address of God to man, the effective establishment of fellowship with him, if God did not oppose manโ€™s opposition to Himself, if He left man to go his own way unaccused and uncondemned and unpunished, if He ignored the miserable pride of man, if the man of sin had nothing to fear from Him, if it were not a fearful thing to fall into His hands (Heb. 12.29). That His grace would not be grace without His judgment is just as true as the supposed opposite with which it is indissolubly connected, that there is no holiness of God which can be separated from His grace, and therefore no wrath of Godโ€”this is something which, unfortunately, A. Ritschl did not even remotely understandโ€”that can be anything other than the redemptive fire of His love, which has its final and proper work in the fact that for our sake, for the sake of man fallen in sin and guilt, He did not spare His only Son.[1]

Let it be known, I donโ€™t care whether or not Barth is palatable to the so-called conservative Reformed and Lutheran theologians of today. But let it also be observed that Barth is no churlish reader and receiver of the Reformed tradition such that he simply discards with what might sound offensive to the Romanticโ€™s and Rationalistโ€™s eardrums. Barth is a Bible reader. As a result, he attempts to do his theology in light of Scriptureโ€™s reality (res), Jesus Christ. As the passage illustrates, Barth understands Godโ€™s grace (and love) from within the context of Godโ€™s Self-revelation as that comes for us in His dearly beloved Son.

This isnโ€™t so much an apology for Barth (in fact I repudiate such things), as it is a call for people to be good theologians. Donโ€™t let foreign limiting factors enter into the theological task, such that said factors delimit the Word of God of being the only source and ground for the outworking of a genuinely Christian theology. In the aforementioned from Barth, we have an example of this type of outworking in the context of his rebuttal of a mediating (liberal) theologian Albrecht Ritschl. And yet, de jure, the basis upon which Barth reads a constructively christologically conditioned notion of Godโ€™s wrath, against, in this case, Ritschl, applies catholically across the board and all around to every period of theological development; into the present and forthcoming.

[1] Karl Barth,ย Church Dogmatics IV/1 ยง60 [490] The Doctrine of Reconciliation:ย Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 131.

The Fittingness of God to Become Human / The Unfittingness of Humans to Become God

Posted on by

It is unfitting for man to exalt himself to the status of God. But it is entirely fitting for God to become man (human). It is fitting for God to enter His creaturely sphere, to become His creaturely magnum opus, and redeem and elevate it from the inside up. It was so fitting for God to become human (man) that He freely elected that status for Himself, even before the foundations of the world, as He elected humanity for Himself; which was ultimately going to be for us (pro nobis). To invert that order is to imbibe the spirit of the Antichrist. The very spirit that slithered upon the Holy ground of Eden and whispered into Eveโ€™s ear with its serpentine forked tongue: โ€œyou will be like God.โ€ Barth writes,

We can state at once the impotence of this enterprise and therefore its inward futility. God becomes and is man. His condescension to us, His being as we are, is an event. It is actuality. It is the act of the One who is free and able to do this. It is the powerful execution of His eternal resolve. It is a triumphant and indisputable and irrevocable fact. But man, on the other hand, only wants to exalt himself and to be as God. He can never do it. He does not have the freedom or power. He may determine on it for long enough, but nothing will ever come of it. He will always fall back on himself and still be man. It is not paradoxical or absurd that God becomes and is man. It does not contradict the concept of God. If fulfils it. It reveals the glory of God. But it is certainly paradoxical and absurd that man wants to be as God. It contradicts the concept of man. It destroys it. Man ceases to be a man when he wants this. It does not involve any alteration in God for Him to become a creature. Even as such He is still the Creator. But it does require an alteration in manโ€”and one that is not given to himโ€”to become God. He cannot hope and he need not concern himself that this will finally be attained. For his own good it is provided that he cannot pass his own limits, try how he will. The only result of his attempts is the revelation of his impotence to do so, and, because he ought not to do so, the revelation of his shame.[1]

This bespeaks the goodness and very goodness of Godโ€™s creation. All things in their proper order (taxis) in relation to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and within that given, that gift humans have the capacity to flourish in the ways intended by the living God. Rebel against this order, as we are wont to do by our โ€˜sinful natures,โ€™ and it all goes to hell.

[1] Karl Barth,ย Church Dogmatics IV/1 ยง60 [419] The Doctrine of Reconciliation:ย Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 61โ€“2.

Some Big News on the PhD Front

Posted on by

Some exciting news. I just had a Zoom meeting today with someone who is now going to be my doktorvater (doctoral supervisor) at the Universitรฉ de Genรจve, the University of Geneva (Switzerland). His name is Professor Dr. Christophe Chalamet. He is a Barth scholar, in particular, and a theological scholar in general, a Reformed theologian, and someone who I resonate with deeply (I just found out). A great brother in Christ. And someone I look up to as this PhD project is about to get underway. I will be writing on a doctrine of sanctification in the theologies of Karl Barth and Thomas F. Torrance, and then bring my own constructive twist as the final offering, within the body of the thesis (dissertation). The program is almost nearly fully funded, which of course has been a huge hurdle for me over the last many years (lack of funding to pursue this type and level of study).

I have been in shock all day; the meeting happened earlier in the morning. It has literally been decades of seeking and searching for this to happen; lots of prayer, and the Lord has finally said: Now! The Lord does exceedingly abundantly above all that we could ever ask or think. I could never have imagined a scenario like this. To get to study Barth and Torrance at a prestigious school like Geneva (that John Calvin originally founded), and with a Barth scholar who is well-established in the field, and highly respected among the peers. And even more importantly, who is a brother in Christ.

To the triune God alone be the glory!

Posted in PhD

On a Knowledge of Sin

Posted on by

Missing the mark; thatโ€™s what sin is, or so I was told in Sunday school. To be sure, it is โ€˜missing the mark,โ€™ but what or who is the mark? All too often people, Christian and Heathen alike, presume to know what sin is; as if there is a self-understood, perceived standard for knowing what the depths of righteousness entails. That is, there is this notion that we inherently know what sin is by our own lights; as if we as a societas have the inner-รœbermensch to stand outside ourselves, on our own self-generated will power, to look back at ourselves, the world, embedded in an unrighteousness, and name it as such. But this is to presume that humanity inhabits a pura natura (pure nature) wherein there remains a divine spark that allows humanity to operate as its own Deus ex machina, capable of self-salvation through its incalculable power and indominable โ€˜holyโ€™ spirit of self-governance. And yet this is to beg the question: is it really nature after all, imbued with its own eternal law, albeit gifted by Godโ€™s voluntas, that brings God-knowledge as the person negates self-knowledge as if the self is merely a mirror reflection of the divine (so, an always already present analogia entis)?

Barth shouts a resounding NEIN! Barth properly argues that there can be no proper knowledge of sin without first a proper knowledge of God in Jesus Christ. Otherwise, if an abstract knowledge of sin could be known, then as corollary, an abstract knowledge of God and a subsequent salvation could obtain. If the sinner could properly search the depths of the human, the fallen heart, it would be conceivable that they alone have the attributes of the Christian God, and as such, could prescribe their own way of salvation. Some might even think of this abstract way of salvation and naming of sin as what has come to be called: secularism. But as is the case with modernity and other epistemic frames of reference, its antecedent ideation has a source, particularly in the West, in and from the various Christian theological syntheses afoot. Barth rightly argues that it is the theologians of the purported โ€˜neutral godโ€™, the notion of godness synthesized with various and ostensible Christian expressions of purported dogmatic articulations of the Holy and triune God, that has led to the secular religion, both in the church and outside, that we swim in today.

Barth writes (at length):

But this knowledge of real sin takes place in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Why in this knowledge? We will first give the comprehensive answer: Because the God against whom the man of sin contends has judged this man, and therefore myself as this man, in the self-offering and death of Jesus Christ His own Son, putting him to death, and destroying him; and because He has revealed and continually reveals him as this one who is judged and put to death and destroyed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and His being and living and speaking and witness for all ages. Because the verdict passed in His resurrection from the dead unmasks this old man, showing that every man is before God, and therefore what I myself am before Him, the man who is judged and put to death and destroyed. All this came upon Jesus Christ for every one of us and therefore for me, in our place and therefore in my place. We are all those and that of which God Himself made an end in Jesus Christ, which transferred to the past in Jesus Christ. We are all wearers of the old garment which was there taken off and destroyed. Indeed, we are all the old man himself who there in Jesus Christ was overtaken by the wrath of God and condemned and executed. Jesus Christ suffered and died in our place, in solidarity with this old man and therefore with us, without any clever reservation in respect of a secret innocence or freedom or capacity for redemption which might be maintained and ascribed to this man and therefore to us; without any contradiction or protest as though what was happening to this old man and therefore to us in this judgment was unjust; without any control over the grace of God, which surely could not be too severe; without reckoning on any sudden turn in His favour, simply in hope in God, but in that hope only in the form of obedience in which Jesus Christ allowed that God was in the right and He Himselfโ€”and therefore the old man and ourselves whose place He had takenโ€”in the wrong, taking it upon Himself to be one with us, and as such to suffer what our acts and we ourselves had deserved before God. Because He is the One who has done this for us, the verdict of God passed in His resurrection and revealed in His being and living and speaking and witness is relevant to all men and therefore to ourselves as we have described it in a first approximation. As the verdict of God it has this complete and comprehensive content, including ourselves and our activity and being, and excluding any conceivable possibility of self-excuse and self-justification. And as the verdict of God it has the authority of His own direct and personal self-knowledge as the basis of what is now our true self-knowledgeโ€”true because in the self-knowledge which has this basis we cannot turn to any other revelation of God, to any God in a more original form, to any faith in such a form of God, attaining there to what is supposed to be a better knowledge of ourselves. In this verdict we learn what God knows about us, and therefore how it really is with us. For this reason its content is valid. For this reason, when we hear it, we have no option but to receive it and accept its validity.[1]

Let the self be damned, for sure it has been in the death and burial of Jesus Christ; and elevated afresh anew in the resurrection and ascension of the Son of Man for all of humanity as humanity in Himself. We will never know what we genuinely need to know outwith inhabiting the bosom of the Father in union with the eternal Son of God, who is the Christ, who is the man, Jesus, son of David, from the hinterparts, of Nazareth in the Galilee.

[1] Karl Barth,ย Church Dogmatics IV/1 ยง60 [391] The Doctrine of Reconciliation:ย Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 34โ€“5.

On Barth’s Christologically Conditioned Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy

Posted on by

Karl Barth is often derided by evangelicals and contemporary Reformed orthodox types for rejecting a doctrine of biblical inerrancy and its underlying fount in a doctrine of Divine-verbal inspiration. This reception of Barth is understandable insofar that Barth does in fact say that he rejects the modern development known as inerrancy. But what shouldnโ€™t be taken from this is that Barth somehow is holding hands with the Teutonic higher critics of the Bible; he is not! In fact, Barth is desirous, in a sense, of rescuing the Bible from the fires of Mordor as those are stoked by the โ€˜Bible critics.โ€™ I would contend that it can be argued that Barth has a higher view of Scripture, formally, than even those who claim to affirm a doctrine of biblical inerrancy and its attendant understanding of Divine inspiration.

Barth firmly believes that the Post Reformed orthodox theologians were intent on securing the veracity and infallibility of Holy Scripture; this can be seen, as Barth underscores, the โ€˜Protestant Scripture Principle,โ€™ which became the formal principle of the Reformed reformational theology. Barth was of the mind that the early Reformed theologians were eager in safeguarding the Bible from her early critics within early modernity (as that was fomenting in the 16th and 17th centuries, respectively). But just as the Fundamentalists of the 20th century built a theology upon their reaction to the higher critics of the 19th century, thus allowing the higher critics to set the agenda and categories and questions that โ€œneeded to be responded to,โ€ similarly, I would argue that Barth maintained that the earlier and middle Reformed theologians allowed the early and developing rationalists of the time to set the agenda and categories and questions that ostensibly needed to be responded to. As such, in Barthโ€™s mind, even those purportedly committed to the Protestant Scripture Principle, its defenders no less, so allowed their categories to be sublimated by their counterparts, that they ended up denuding the category of revelation itself vis-ร -vis Holy Scripture, such that Holy Scripture lost its โ€œHolyโ€ character by being relegated to the level of just another profane book.

Barth writes,

We must not forget that the transition from biblical to biblicist thought does involve the transition to a rationalismโ€”supranaturalistic thought it is in content. Therefore the relationship of theology to the truths of revelation which it has taken from the Bible is no longer the relationship to an authority which superior to man. It has fundamentally the same assurance and control with regard to them as man as a rational creature has in regard to himself, his experience, his thinking and therefore his world, believing that he is the master of himself as subject and therefore of his objects, or of his own relation to them.

As is well known the supreme achievement of the older Protestant orthodoxy was the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture as developed in the later 17th century and given confessional status in the Helvetic Formula of Concord in 1675. There can be no doubt, however, that this was not merely worked out as a bulwark against a growing rationalism, but that it was itself, not an expression of an over-developed faith of revelation, but a product of typical rationalistic thinkingโ€”the attempt to replace faith and indirect knowledge by direct knowledge, to assure oneself of revelation in such a way that it was divorced from the living Word of the living God as attested in Scripture, pin-pointing it, making it readily apprehensible as though it were an object of secular experience, and therefore divesting it in fact of its character as revelation.

The irremediable danger of consulting Holy Scripture apart from the centre, and in such a way that the question of Jesus Christ ceases to be the controlling and comprehensive question and simply becomes on amongst others, consists primarily in the fact that (even presupposing a strict and exclusive Scripture principle) Scripture is thought of and used as though the message of revelation and the Word of God could be extracted from it in the same way as the message of other truth or reality can be extracted from other sources of knowledge, at any rate where it is not presumably speaking of Jesus Christ. But if Scripture is read in this way, the Scripture principle will not stand very long. Secretly the book of revelation is being treated and read like other books; and the question cannot long be denied whether the message we gather from it cannot be gathered from other books either by way of addition or even basically; whether the truths of revelation in the Bible are not of a series with all kinds of other truths; whether in them we do no simply have concretions of what is revealed concerning God and His will to all other men as such and by nature, of themselves, by the dictate of their reason? If Jesus Christ is seen to be the whole of Scripture, the one truth of revelation, this question cannot even be put, let alone given a positive answer. There is no other book which witnesses to Jesus Christ apart from Holy Scripture. This decides the fact that only in Holy Scripture do we have to do with the one and the whole Word and revelation of God. But if we do not see this, it is inevitable that the question of other sources of revelation should be put, and that sooner or later it should be given a positive answer.[1]

Barth is attempting to correct what he sees as a misstep made early on by the scholastics Reformed in their attempt to protect and elevate Holy Scripture; and this, based upon what he takes to be the wrong foundations. As clearly indicated by Barthโ€™s above passage he believes that it is only when Holy Scripture is grounded in and framed by its reality in Jesus Christ that it can maintain its elevated and โ€˜Holyโ€™ status as the written Word of God for humanity, for the church. Barthโ€™s concern is always to unhitch the holiness of God from our own fallen and abstract speculations, and instead to ground them in the holy and elevated revelation of Godโ€™s triune life for the world in the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. His critique of the normal receptions and understandings of the scholastics Reformed up to and including contemporary Reformed and evangelical theology cuts across this whole swath.

Conversely, Barth isnโ€™t out to destroy the veracity or authority of Holy Scripture. Au contraire, he is seeking to provide a truly evangelical basis and theory of revelation for Scriptureโ€™s elevated status as the place where its gladhands are securely connected to its reality in the big-Hand of the Father as that is extended to us in the pierced hands of Jesus Christ. I think Barth might, at times, overextend himself when he refers to biblical inerrancy (see his Gรถttingen Dogmatics and Evangelical Theology: An Introduction), and come off sounding like he rejects the absolute veracity and holiness of the Bible. But even in the short passage we just read from him, it ought to become immediately apparent that this was not Barthโ€™s intention whatsoever. In fact, if Barthโ€™s critique is sound, and I think it is, it is the ostensible stalwarts of a biblical inerrancy and verbal inspiration, the contemporary Reformed and evangelicals among us, who unwittingly lower Holy Scriptureโ€™s provenance into the wastelands of the rationalists (Socinians) and higher biblical critics. Barth offers an alternative theory of revelation, inclusive of biblical revelation, particularly as he articulates that in his threefold form of the Word of God (and please understand, dear reader, that the scholastics Reformed first developed what has been identified as a fourfold form of the Word of Godโ€”so the heuristic is not a novelty developed by Barth, per se). Give him a fair hearing, and not a distorted one based upon his antagonists. Barth has a higher view of Scripture, based upon his christologically conditioned theory of revelation, than do, ironically, his critics on this very subject.

[1] Karl Barth,ย Church Dogmatics IV/1 ยง60 [368-69] The Doctrine of Reconciliation:ย Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 11.