Church Dogmatics
The Church Dogmatics (abbreviated " KD " ) was published in 1932-1967, and is the main work of the Protestant theologian Karl Barth. It is divided into several volumes and contains 9000 pages.
The doctrine of God
(see KD II, 1288-664, " God's reality " )
God is freedom and love with Karl Barth. This setting determines the total Barth's doctrine of God. God is love, in which he is free and the freedom in which he loves (compare 362 387 ). The love of God as a fundamental property of Barth, the Trinity is derived, ie from a given " social " basic situation in which behave Father, Son and Holy Spirit each other. The freedom of that love is then found not only in the fact that the tendency to talk of a freely chosen love, not at all could be spoken of love, but especially the fact that even here God is thought of as the "Lord " on whose grace no one has a claim. Because basically in the aseitas Dei is preserved God's sovereignty. Only then, according to Barth, ultimately, the gift of grace to appreciate. The criticism of this portrayal of God then attacks also to the Calvin 's " Distance pathos " to, a god among advanced form of dignity that requires for its " increasing " the humiliation of the people ( cf. 288339-350 etc.).
Because God's love to Barth is now free, it is grace, it was made unconditionally. God's love is unconditional then " love our enemies ", is such as 5.44 LUT should be human love for others also to Mt. The " bridge over the abyss " but that suggests that love is so far independent of the human as it does not require its approval, is not based on reciprocity, but as a " set " ( as a law? ) Holds.
The doctrine of grace
( cf. KD II, 2 1-563 )
The doctrine of election is the center of Barth's dogmatics, it is to Barth the whole gospel, the gospel in a nutshell. The election of grace includes God's freedom, the mystery of God and God's righteousness. It is understood as an act of free grace, sola gratia is. Above all, the aspect of freedom now is emphasized. God's will does not know why he is the " why " ( 25ff.; see also KD II, 1).
The decision of God to the free grace of election but is a preliminary decision, an all human self-determination underlying before- determination, precentral destinatio. So here is a Barths covenant of grace, which has as its " outer " has the creation, just as he himself "inner ground" of creation (cf. KD III, and IV, 1, 1, Barth's theology of covenant ).
For Barth, there is no double predestination for man, not with an opposing to the election rejection provided praedestinatio gemina, as it represents Calvinism. From God's " Yes and " No man is the "yes" meant for, while the " No" in rejection, condemnation and death of God takes on himself. Evil is " the subdued power" that only in the impossible and unreal, di the absence of good, exists.
The election is then concretely in Christ for Barth. Christ is the only one who is chosen and discarded in accordance with the praedestinatio gemina, the representative takes the rejection of all people, because " [ ... ] God wants to lose so that man win ." In Christ, but also meet the electing God and the elected man together. The election is so taken by and through Christ vollzogenene and the happened to him election. In him as judge eventually directed the Last Judgment always already obsolete ( cf. KD II, 2, and 63,111,124 Ephesians 1:4 LUT).
Nevertheless, Barth rejects a apokatastasis Panton ( " Seligwerdung all "). Since not in Barth from the overcoming of evil now follows its disappearance, a Apokatastasis (aka: "Recovery "), a " Day " of grace ( Pöhlmann 1984, 44) it does not follow in the sense that they as a law the universal reconciliation would understand - choice remains with Barth in the freedom of grace. Thus Barth tries to avoid the consequence of turning the "open multitude of the elect " a "closed number " ( as does the classical doctrine of predestination ), and thus the action (see Barth's ' actualism ' ) into a facticity, from the out there none of the life-giving Gospel, would not need the last ( eschatological ) exemption and the term more of a "Good " is (without the accrual of a then leveled " evil " back ) could no longer be explicated. There is for Barth therefore very much an outside Christ the non- election, which can neither be ignored nor shall, however, the primacy of the election just in preaching seems to enforce ( in compliance with this dualism ). Not only that Christ instituted just for the wicked (see below), but for Barth is also the believer a potentially depraved man, a not discarded only in Christ (cf. 383.466ff. ).
Thus, the fault can not be separated from the election in Barth. Not only that, according to Barth, " God willing, that the reprobate believe and become a believer a chosen Warped " ( 563), but this has always been in God's plan of salvation, as Barth at the surrender of Jesus ( paradosis ) by Judas Iscariot performs: First by the secular court divine grace becomes visible only through this " delivery " begins the ( apostolic ) " tradition ", the proclamation of the good news indeed explicitly ( cf. 498.530ff.554ff.563 ).
Man is now chosen in faith. He is chosen by (1.4 LUT Eph ) is in it, in God's electing understands the revealing grace of God and affirmed ( cf. 113). Located by Barth man " in him", ie " In his person ", " his will ", so is he " in and with his being chosen " (cf. 125). That being chosen concretized in faith. ( cf. 135). Here are the choice for the people can be considered his freedom to fulfill his destiny or miss. In this context untenable but now acts Barthsche the thesis of the ontological impossibility of unbelief, which also already written in their decree of " faith automatism " in the criticism.
God's electing now has current character in Barth, is taken as an eternal event. In this understanding of the eternal election of Jesus Christ, it is Barth possible to recover from the doctrine of grace not only to Christology, but also the creation, sin and the doctrine of justification and ethics ( cf. 202).
The individual is in Barth now but subordinate to the municipality by the fact that in Christ Jesus the detail of the people is negated. The election of the community but is election of Israel and the Church. As Christ as " the crucified Messiah of Israel," " the secret Lord of the Church ", so he is known as " the risen Lord of the Church," " the revealed Messiah of Israel " (cf. ibid 218). The community is in Barth therefore one in both, and both in one - Israel and the Church, and connected to one taken through the one Jesus of Nazareth in their midst. The task of the church but is "exclusive" the proclamation of the Good News, not the definition of the " wicked ".
Even if everyone who was chosen as an elect lived, then by Barth, however, that Jesus Christ has just entered for the wicked ( cf. ibid 362 383 ).
The doctrine of creation
( cf. KD III, 1 )
The doctrine of creation is understood by Barth as a doctrine. This is especially a theologia naturalis be escaped. The creation is regarded as what has been accomplished ( perfectum ). This been accomplished has been accomplished in the history of Israel, but which creation story is salvation history.
The starting point of a doctrine of creation is for Barth in Jesus Christ. In his creator is given as a creature. This is noetic and ontic: Jesus Christ is "the Word", by which the creation is completed, and in him God is not only recognizable, but is also there ( cf. ibid.) "Who has made man as a creature of God here, in Jesus Christ, discovered who immediately hence the heavens and the earth discovered as a subject of the divine act of creation " (29). The biblicism the leading approach in the creation stories (Genesis) is thus discarded.
With Christ as the starting point of creation but falls in Barth in God's grace, is the implementation of the covenant of grace ( cf. 46). Thus, in Barth, creation is localized as an external basis of the covenant in Gen 1:1-2:4 a LUT, whereas Gen 2:4 b ff LUT expression appeals to the federal government as an internal basis of creation. "The Covenant of Grace is the theme of the story (64) story does salvation history and creation is as unhistorical history during the time period. The creation is done just in time, as God's "eternal grace and Schöpfungsratschluß " (73 ) is out of time. However, Genesis is not a " historical " story ( cf. Kähler ), but according to Barth in the fact that it is " directly to God in the eternity borders " unhistorical history.
This is rejected by Barth not only on the classification of the creation, but also the problem of the categorial fallacy pointed out, in which the onlooker into embarks who is trying to take from the created history out these as a whole, even over them, their justification means of to recognize the waiting his immanence (see the concept of time also 77-82 ). The virulent "nothing" of creation is thus not only possible positive size. The " nothing" in Barth, not least to avoid a theological dualism, but rather the by-passed by God before the creation opportunity. There is light, darkness is just too, that in the absence of light, the separateness of light ( cf. 117). Likewise, the court will Barth ( according to Gen 1:2 LUT) described only as a possible, is as a de facto once and for all times in Jesus Christ had been completed.
Man is now his imago Dei in a given analogy relationalis (after Bonhoeffer ). Herein Barth's doctrine of the Trinity is reflected in the economic ( visible ) approach to the immanent (invisible) is appended, this must give the reason for that: In the wake of Gen 1:26 LUT, the trinitarian God -centeredness now reflected in its relatedness than the one God to man, then for the people than the gender -relatedness of woman to man. This not only represented by Brunner other Thomistic conception of an analogy of being, who wants a quality image of God, the same participation in the "being" of God and man only in " different tightness " ( O.Weber 1950, 92) It complains about rejected. Rather, the abhängende of the approach of the analogy of being Reformed view of the loss of purity, of the status integritatis is discarded.
If the imago Dei but described as relationalis analogy, it is thus pointed out by Barth to their unavailability for humans. In contrast to the description of the image of God as the analogy of being, it is as a gift of God to understand ( cf. 226). The original form of the analogy relationalis finds Barth but in the relatedness of Jesus Christ exhibited to the community, from which then again ecclesiological consequences ( cf. 1 Cor 11.7 LUT).