Dialectic Neo-orthodox Reformed Theology vs Traditional Reformed Theology

Illustration representing the contrasting debate between Dialectical Reformed
Neo-Orthodox Theology vs. traditional Reformed Theology.    |   Illus: ChatGPT

Karl Barth's Dialectical Reformed Theology with the distinct Neo-Orthodox Reformed Theology of Gogarten, Bultmann, and Brunner.   |   Illus: ChatGPT

Karl Barth's Dialectical Reformed Theology contrasted with
traditional Reformed Church Doctrine.   |   Illus: ChatGPT

Dialectic Neo-orthodox Reformed Theology

vs. Traditional Reformed Theology

by R.E. Slater

Question 1

Has Karl Barth's dialectic Reformed theology every found peace and agreeableness with contemporary Reformed thought or is their still a jagged dipolarity between the two?

ChatGPT said:

Karl Barth's dialectical theology has had a complex relationship with contemporary Reformed thought. Over time, there has been some reconciliation, but tensions remain due to Barth’s distinctive emphasis on divine transcendence, revelation, and the Christocentric nature of theology. Here's an overview of where Barth's theology and contemporary Reformed thought find agreement and where they diverge:

Points of Reconciliation

1. Christocentric Focus:

   • Barth’s insistence on the centrality of Christ aligns with contemporary Reformed theology’s commitment to Christ as the culmination of God’s redemptive work.
   • Many Reformed theologians appreciate Barth’s emphasis on the person and work of Christ as the definitive revelation of God.

2. Scriptural Primacy:

   • While Barth diverged from traditional Reformed interpretations, his high regard for Scripture as the unique witness to God’s revelation resonates with Reformed traditions' emphasis on sola scriptura.

3. The Sovereignty of God:

   • Barth's theology strongly affirms the absolute sovereignty of God, a core tenet of Reformed theology, even though Barth interprets it more dynamically (as God’s freedom in love) rather than systematically.

4. Critique of Natural Theology:

   • Barth’s rejection of natural theology (as seen in his debates with Emil Brunner) aligns with the Reformed critique of autonomous human reason’s ability to know God apart from revelation.

---

Points of Tension

1. Dialectical Approach vs. Systematic Theology:

   • Barth’s dialectical method, which embraces paradox and mystery, contrasts with the traditional Reformed preference for systematic, logical coherence in theological formulations.
   • Contemporary Reformed theologians often find Barth’s rejection of scholastic precision challenging.

2. Doctrine of Election:

   • Barth’s reinterpretation of election as Christocentric (Jesus Christ as both the Electing God and the Elected Man) departs from classical Reformed double predestination (Calvinism).
   • This reinterpretation has sparked debates about whether Barth remains genuinely Reformed or represents a significant departure.

3. Covenant Theology:

   • Traditional Reformed theology places significant emphasis on covenant theology as a framework for understanding God’s relationship with humanity.
   • Barth’s critique of covenant theology as overly anthropocentric creates distance from contemporary Reformed thought, which often seeks to reclaim covenant theology in new ways.

4. Revelation and Historical-Critical Method:

   • Barth’s understanding of revelation as wholly rooted in Jesus Christ contrasts with contemporary Reformed engagements with historical-critical methods and their openness to broader modes of divine communication.

---

Contemporary Developments

1. Neo-Calvinism and Barth:

   • Neo-Calvinist theologians, like those in the Kuyperian tradition, often engage critically with Barth, appreciating his insights but finding his rejection of natural theology and his Christocentrism too restrictive.

2. Evangelical Reformed Movements:

   • Some evangelical Reformed thinkers, such as those influenced by figures like T.F. Torrance, have embraced Barth’s Christocentric insights while adapting them to fit within a more traditional Reformed framework.

3. Process of Re-evaluation:

   • Contemporary Reformed scholars, such as Bruce McCormack, have sought to situate Barth’s theology more firmly within the Reformed tradition by interpreting him as reshaping, rather than rejecting, its core principles.

---

Conclusion

While Barth’s theology has softened some of the sharper edges of its early opposition to traditional Reformed thought, fundamental differences remain, particularly in methodology and key doctrines like election and covenant. However, many contemporary Reformed theologians have found in Barth’s work valuable insights for renewing and deepening their own theological commitments, suggesting that a measure of peace and dialogue has been achieved, even if full agreement remains elusive.

Question 2
Let me restate my question... compare Neo-Orthodox Reformed thinking with traditional Reformed thinking

ChatGPT said:

The comparison between Neo-Orthodox Reformed thinking and traditional Reformed thinking reveals both areas of continuity and significant differences. While Neo-Orthodoxy, exemplified by Karl Barth, retains many hallmarks of the Reformed tradition, it reinterprets them in ways that often diverge from the older dogmatic frameworks.

---

1. Core Commitments: Areas of Continuity

Sovereignty of God

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Emphasizes God's absolute sovereignty over all aspects of creation, history, and salvation, often formulated through doctrines like predestination and covenant theology.
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Upholds God's sovereignty but interprets it dynamically as God’s freedom in self-revelation and love, rather than as a deterministic force governing human history.

Centrality of Christ

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Strongly emphasizes Christ as the mediator of salvation and the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan within the framework of covenant theology.
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Places an even sharper focus on Christ, interpreting Him as the sole revelation of God and the center of all theology, to the exclusion of natural theology or autonomous reason.

Scriptural Authority

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Holds to sola scriptura, affirming Scripture as the final authority for faith and life, often interpreted in a systematic and propositional way.
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Views Scripture as a witness to the Word of God, with its authority derived from its function as the vehicle for divine revelation in Christ, rather than as an inerrant, propositional text.

---

2. Points of Divergence

Natural Theology

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Often affirms the ability of natural theology to provide knowledge of God through creation (e.g., Belgic Confession, Romans 1:20).
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Rejects natural theology outright, arguing that humanity cannot know God apart from His self-revelation in Christ. Barth, for example, viewed natural theology as idolatrous.

Doctrine of Election

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Develops the doctrine of double predestination, emphasizing God’s sovereign choice to elect some to salvation and others to reprobation (Calvin, Westminster Standards).
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Redefines election as Christocentric. For Barth, Christ is both the electing God and the elected Man, emphasizing God’s universal act of grace while leaving the final outcome of individual salvation open.

Covenant Theology

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Focuses on covenant theology as the organizing framework for understanding Scripture and God’s relationship with humanity (e.g., Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace).
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Is skeptical of covenant theology as overly anthropocentric, preferring to emphasize God’s unilateral action in revelation and grace.

Theology of Revelation

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Emphasizes propositional revelation in Scripture, believing that theology involves systematizing biblical truths into coherent doctrines.
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Prioritizes personal encounter and divine self-disclosure, where revelation is not information about God but God Himself in relationship with humanity through Christ.

View of Human Reason

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Affirms the noetic effects of sin but believes human reason, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, can grasp divine truths in Scripture.
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Views human reason as profoundly limited and incapable of accessing divine truth apart from God’s gracious initiative in revelation.

Church and Sacraments

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Emphasizes the visible and institutional nature of the church, with sacraments functioning as means of grace.
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Stresses the dynamic and spiritual nature of the church as the community of those who respond to God’s Word. Sacraments are viewed as events of encounter with God rather than means of grace in a fixed sense.

---

3. Methodology and Tone

Systematic Theology

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Focuses on creating a coherent system of doctrine based on biblical exegesis and theological tradition (e.g., Calvin’s Institutes).
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Prefers a dialectical approach that embraces paradox, tension, and mystery, resisting systematic closure.

Engagement with Modern Thought

• Traditional Reformed Thinking: Often critiques modernity while retaining a high regard for doctrinal continuity and systematic theology.
• Neo-Orthodox Thinking: Actively engages with modern existentialism, philosophy, and biblical criticism, seeking to reformulate theology in light of contemporary questions while critiquing Enlightenment rationalism.

---

4. Reception and Legacy

Neo-Orthodox Influence

• Neo-Orthodox theology has been influential in revitalizing Reformed thought, especially in its Christocentric focus and critique of Enlightenment rationalism. It has encouraged deeper engagement with Scripture and existential questions of faith.

Traditional Reformed Critique

• Traditional Reformed theologians have critiqued Neo-Orthodoxy for its perceived subjectivity, its rejection of natural theology, and its lack of systematic coherence. Many see Barth’s reinterpretations of election and covenant theology as a departure from Reformed orthodoxy.

---

Summary

Neo-Orthodox Reformed thinking revitalized many core aspects of Reformed theology, especially through its Christocentric and existential emphases, but it departs from traditional Reformed dogmatics in significant ways, particularly in its rejection of natural theology, redefinition of election, and dialectical methodology. While the two approaches share a commitment to God's sovereignty and Scriptural centrality, their differing methodologies and theological emphases create ongoing tension within the broader Reformed tradition.

Question 3

How has Neo-Orthodoxy helped contemporize Traditional Reformed theology?

ChatGPT said:

Neo-Orthodoxy, spearheaded by theologians like Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Reinhold Niebuhr, has significantly influenced and helped contemporize Traditional Reformed theology by addressing modern challenges while staying rooted in core Reformed principles. Below are key areas where Neo-Orthodoxy has contributed to the renewal and modernization of Traditional Reformed thought:

---

1. Christocentrism as the Organizing Principle

• Renewed Focus on Christ: Neo-Orthodoxy sharpened the focus on Christ as the center of theology, emphasizing His role as the ultimate revelation of God.
  • Impact on Traditional Reformed Theology: This Christocentric lens has revitalized preaching and teaching by reframing doctrines like election, covenant, and justification through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
  • For example, Karl Barth’s redefinition of election as centered on Christ inspired many contemporary Reformed theologians to rethink their approach to predestination in ways that emphasize grace and divine love.

---

2. Engagement with Modern Philosophy and Existentialism

• Response to Secularism: Neo-Orthodoxy engaged deeply with modern existentialist questions about meaning, human freedom, and despair, providing a theology that resonated with contemporary cultural concerns.
  • Impact on Traditional Reformed Theology: It pushed Reformed thinkers to confront Enlightenment rationalism and secular humanism, offering theological responses that were intellectually rigorous yet pastorally relevant.
  • Barth’s rejection of anthropocentric theology encouraged Reformed thinkers to critique the individualism and rationalism pervasive in modern thought.

---

3. Emphasis on Revelation Over Natural Theology

• Revelation as Event: Neo-Orthodoxy rejected natural theology, focusing instead on divine revelation as the encounter with the living God, particularly in Jesus Christ.
  • Impact on Traditional Reformed Theology: While many Reformed theologians maintain a place for natural theology, Neo-Orthodoxy has enriched their understanding of Scripture as more than a static text. It emphasized the dynamic and relational nature of God’s self-disclosure, encouraging contemporary Reformed theology to embrace mystery and transcendence alongside doctrine.

---

4. Renewed Focus on Paradox and Mystery

• Dialectical Thinking: Neo-Orthodoxy embraced the paradoxical nature of Christian truths (e.g., the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility) rather than resolving them systematically.
  • Impact on Traditional Reformed Theology: This openness to paradox has helped Reformed theology to move beyond rigid scholasticism, allowing for greater nuance and engagement with complex theological and cultural issues.

---

5. Social and Ethical Concerns

• Theology Engaged with Society: Neo-Orthodoxy, particularly in figures like Reinhold Niebuhr, emphasized the social dimensions of sin and grace, engaging with politics, economics, and justice.
  • Impact on Traditional Reformed Theology: This has encouraged contemporary Reformed theologians to think more critically about the implications of their faith for public life, reinvigorating Calvinism’s historical emphasis on societal transformation.

---

6. Biblical Theology Movement

• Recovery of the Narrative: Neo-Orthodoxy spurred the recovery of the Bible as a dynamic story of God’s redemptive activity, emphasizing its theological unity rather than fragmenting it into proof texts.
  • Impact on Traditional Reformed Theology: This has inspired a renewed focus on redemptive-historical preaching and covenant theology, making the Bible’s overarching narrative accessible and meaningful to modern audiences.

---

7. Critique of Institutionalism

• Living Faith over Dead Orthodoxy: Neo-Orthodoxy critiqued the tendency of traditional theology to become overly institutionalized or doctrinaire, urging a return to faith as a living, personal encounter with God.
  • Impact on Traditional Reformed Theology: This has reinvigorated worship, preaching, and pastoral care within Reformed circles, encouraging a more experiential and relational approach to faith.

---

Challenges and Limitations

• Despite its contributions, Neo-Orthodoxy has also faced criticism from Traditional Reformed thinkers:
  • Scriptural Authority: Neo-Orthodoxy’s rejection of inerrancy and its view of Scripture as a witness to revelation has been a point of contention.
  • Natural Theology: Many Reformed theologians find Neo-Orthodoxy’s outright rejection of natural theology overly restrictive.
  • Systematic Theology: The dialectical method of Neo-Orthodoxy is seen by some as too fluid and insufficiently rigorous for maintaining doctrinal consistency.

---

Conclusion

Neo-Orthodoxy has contemporized Traditional Reformed theology by engaging with modern existential questions, recovering a dynamic Christocentric focus, and reinvigorating the Reformed emphasis on divine sovereignty and revelation. While tensions remain, it has encouraged Reformed theology to address the spiritual and cultural challenges of the modern world with intellectual and pastoral vigor, making its core doctrines more accessible and relevant to contemporary audiences.

Question 4
Has this gained momentum within Reformed Theology or has it caused Reformism to withdraw sharply back?

ChatGPT said:

The relationship between Neo-Orthodoxy and Traditional Reformed theology has been complex, producing both momentum for renewal and sharp reactions of withdrawal depending on theological, cultural, and denominational contexts. Here’s an analysis of the dynamics:

---

1. Momentum for Renewal

Neo-Orthodoxy has inspired elements within the Reformed tradition to modernize and deepen their theological engagement:

Christ-Centered Renewal

• Karl Barth’s Christocentric theology revitalized the Reformed focus on Jesus Christ as the center of revelation, inspiring theologians to rethink doctrines like election and covenant in relational, rather than purely doctrinal, terms.
• This has led to a wave of fresh theological scholarship that emphasizes grace, divine freedom, and the mystery of God’s self-revelation.

Biblical Theology

• Neo-Orthodoxy’s emphasis on Scripture as a dynamic narrative of God’s redemptive action has energized the redemptive-historical preaching movement within Reformed theology.
• This approach highlights the unfolding story of Christ across the canon, resonating with contemporary audiences who seek a holistic, narrative understanding of faith.

Relevance to Modern Issues

• By engaging existentialism, Neo-Orthodoxy has encouraged Reformed theologians to address modern concerns such as alienation, secularism, and social justice.
• Figures like Reinhold Niebuhr (influenced by Barth) brought theological insights into public discourse, contributing to Reformed engagement in politics and ethics.

Pastoral Impact

• The Neo-Orthodox emphasis on faith as a personal encounter with God has reinvigorated preaching, worship, and discipleship in many Reformed churches, making faith more relational and experiential.

---

2. Sharp Withdrawal and Reaction

While some Reformed circles have embraced Neo-Orthodox ideas, others have reacted strongly against them, seeking to preserve traditional orthodoxy:

Defense of Scriptural Inerrancy

• Neo-Orthodoxy’s view of Scripture as a "witness" to the Word of God, rather than the inerrant Word itself, has caused significant backlash among confessional Reformed theologians, particularly in conservative denominations.
• This led to movements like the reaffirmation of inerrancy in the Chicago Statement (1978) as a direct response to Neo-Orthodox influence.

Suspicion of Dialectical Theology

• Barth’s rejection of systematic theology and embrace of paradox has been viewed by many Reformed thinkers as undermining doctrinal clarity and consistency.
• Theological conservatives often see this as a slippery slope toward theological liberalism or relativism.

Rejection of Universalistic Tendencies

• Barth’s Christocentric redefinition of election (viewing Christ as both the electing God and the elected Man) has raised fears of universalism, which many Reformed theologians perceive as inconsistent with traditional teachings on predestination.

Preservation of Natural Theology

• Neo-Orthodoxy’s rejection of natural theology has alienated those in the Reformed tradition who see Romans 1:20 and the Belgic Confession as affirming the legitimacy of natural knowledge of God.

Resurgence of Confessionalism

• In response to Neo-Orthodox critiques, many Reformed denominations have doubled down on their confessional standards (e.g., the Westminster Confession), emphasizing historical continuity and doctrinal precision.
• This has created a withdrawal into "confessional Reformed" circles that resist modernizing influences.

---

3. Present State: Divergence Within Reformed Theology

The impact of Neo-Orthodoxy has varied widely within the global Reformed community:

Areas of Influence

• Mainline Reformed Churches: Neo-Orthodoxy has found a more receptive audience in mainline Reformed denominations (e.g., PC(USA), United Church of Christ), where engagement with modernity and existential theology is seen as essential for remaining culturally relevant.
• Academic Theology: In seminaries and theological scholarship, Neo-Orthodox themes like Christocentrism, paradox, and the critique of natural theology have significantly influenced Reformed academic thought.

Areas of Resistance

• Confessional and Conservative Churches: Many conservative Reformed denominations (e.g., Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America) have rejected Neo-Orthodox influences, viewing them as a threat to traditional orthodoxy and the authority of Scripture.
• Global South: In growing Reformed communities in the Global South, where concerns are more focused on evangelism and church planting, Neo-Orthodoxy’s existential and philosophical concerns are often seen as less relevant.

---

4. Long-Term Trends

• Theological Polarization: Neo-Orthodoxy has contributed to a growing divide between progressive and conservative Reformed communities, with some embracing its innovations and others retreating into confessionalism.
• Selective Appropriation: Many Reformed thinkers have adopted aspects of Neo-Orthodoxy (e.g., Christocentrism, dynamic revelation) while rejecting others (e.g., rejection of natural theology, critique of systematic theology).
• Renewed Reformed Identity: By challenging the Reformed tradition to rethink its core doctrines in light of modernity, Neo-Orthodoxy has, paradoxically, helped sharpen the identity of both progressive and traditional Reformed theologians.

---

Conclusion

Neo-Orthodoxy has both energized and challenged the Reformed tradition. For some, it has been a catalyst for renewal, making Reformed theology more relevant to modern cultural and intellectual contexts. For others, it has prompted a defensive withdrawal into traditional confessionalism to safeguard orthodoxy. This tension continues to shape the evolving landscape of Reformed theology, fostering both creative engagement and doctrinal resistance.

Neo-Orthodox Dialectical Reformed Theology (Barth) vs. Traditional Reformed Dogmatic Theology

 

I thought it might be fun to review Barth's liberal theology (ala his 20th century Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy) versus yesteryear's Reformed theologies of that same period which were decidedly more staid and dogmatic in its conservative theologies.

Each theological system opposed the other while utilizing the Hegelian dialectical method of statement, then restatement. That is, Barth created a positional thesis of "actualism" within Reformed thought to which the Reformed church responded via it's austere and older traditions by offering a counterpoint antithesis of a distant God who only became involved with creation more-or-less similarly to how the Greek pantheon of gods had responded to mankind in their ancient mythologies.

This then elicited back-and-forth responses between Neo-Orthodox Reformers such as Barth, Bultmann, Brunner, and Bonhoeffer to Reformed theologians such as Cornelius Van Til et al. Years later these discussions culminated in a synthesis between Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy and Reformed Traditionalism. A synthesis which I'll pursue in a follow up article with ChatGPT to elucidate.

In that same discussion, I would like to compare how today's Process Theology per it's (i) Progressive Evangelical and, (ii) Post-Evangelical, branches more align with Barth's [Being-and-Becoming position of] "actualism" than they do with Conservative Evangelical theology's embrace of traditionally dogmatic Reformed thought. It should be a fun exercise.

Blessings,

R.E. Slater

December 25, 2024

* * * * * * *

Illustration representing the contrasting debate between Dialectical Reformed
Neo-Orthodox Theology vs. traditional Reformed Theology.    |   Illus: ChatGPT

Karl Barth's Dialectical Reformed Theology with the distinct Neo-Orthodox Reformed Theology of Gogarten, Bultmann, and Brunner.   |   Illus: ChatGPT

Karl Barth's Dialectical Reformed Theology contrasted with
traditional Reformed Church Doctrine.   |   Illus: ChatGPT

Neo-Orthodox Dialectical Reformed Theology (Barth)

vs.

Traditional Reformed Dogmatic Theology

AI Overview

Karl Barth's "Church Dogmatics" is considered a prime example of dialectical theology because it constantly navigates and holds together seemingly contradictory truths about God, emphasizing the radical distinction between the "wholly other" God and human beings, while simultaneously affirming God's love and grace revealed in Jesus Christ, essentially presenting a theology that operates within the tension of "yes" and "no" statements about God's nature and actions.

Key points about Barth's dialectical approach in "Church Dogmatics":

• Transcendent God - Barth insists that God is completely beyond human comprehension and cannot be known through reason alone, but only through God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ.

• "Wholly Otherness" - This concept highlights the radical difference between God and humanity, meaning God's actions and nature cannot be fully grasped by human categories.

• Christocentric focus - All theological truths are understood through the lens of Jesus Christ, who is the sole mediator between God and humanity.

• Tension and paradox - Barth uses language that appears contradictory to emphasize the mystery of God, holding both "yes" (God's grace) and "no" (human sinfulness) in tension without trying to reconcile them completely.

Example of dialectical tension in "Church Dogmatics":

• Human freedom and divine sovereignty - While affirming God's absolute sovereignty, Barth also acknowledges human freedom, acknowledging the tension between God's predestination and human choice.

• Sin and grace - Barth emphasizes the depth of human sinfulness while simultaneously proclaiming the boundless grace of God in Christ, showing how these seemingly opposing realities are intertwined.

Why is this considered dialectical?

Dialogue with contradiction - Unlike a more systematic theology that seeks to resolve contradictions, dialectical theology embraces the tension between seemingly opposing truths, allowing for a richer understanding of God's complex nature.

* * * * * * *

Dialectical Theology - A form of neoorthodox theology emphasizing the infinite tensions, paradoxes, and basic ambiguities inherent in Christian existence, and holding, against rationalism, that God is unknowable to humans except through divine grace and revelation. - Dictionary.com

 

Dialectical Theology (noun) - Neoorthodoxy, especially as holding against rationalism, that one's attempts to know God by one's own reasoning reach contradictory conclusions and must give way to a faith that awaits God's Word [in Jesus]. - Merriam-Webster

* * * * * * *

Encyclopedia.com

Dialectical Theology

article link

Coming as a reaction to Protestant liberalism, dialectical theology, sometimes called the theology of crisis, appeared as a movement among European Protestant theologians right after World War I. It is represented in the works of K. Barth, F. Gogarten, E. Thurneysen, E. Brunner, and R. Bultmann. Initially, all the members of the group employed the pages of the review Zwischen den Zeiten to echo the message Barth proclaimed in the second edition of his Römerbrief (1922): God's absolute transcendence, the sovereignty of His revelation in Jesus Christ, the authority of the Scriptures, and the emptiness of man, simul justus et peccator, before God.

Barth's starting point was God's "critical negation" (hence the movement's alternate designation) of all man's endeavors to be religious. God remains totally other even in His revelation, for His eternity and the temporality of human existence are altogether disparate. He does not enter into history in order to be captured by time. Rather, in salvation history the sovereign action of God touches man's world somewhat as a tangent brushes the circumference of a circle. The Word of God in Jesus Christ is, however, not merely a negation. In Him [Jesus], God also accepts man, so that Christ at one-and-the-same-time reveals God's wrath and His mercy.

About 1927 Barth appears to have modified his view of the dialectical situation of man. Especially in the Kirchliche Dogmatik (1932–67) he substitutes the positive notion of God's fidelity for the critical negation. Thus his theory merits the designation "dialectical" less than previously.

The other representatives named above supported Barth's affirmation that revelation and faith transcend all historical information and religious experience. Seeds of disagreement were present even initially, however, for Gogarten, Bultmann, and Brunner could not accept without reservation what Barth said of the radical opposition between time and eternity. From 1926 on it was evident that each of them had a peculiar and personal understanding of what dialectical theology is.

• For Gogarten its basis is our recognition that we have no knowledge of God which is not, at the same time, knowledge of ourselves.

• Bultmann, in his own manner, thinks of the existential situation (historicity) of man and his speech concerning God (see existential theology).

• Brunner makes much of the "formal" opposition between man's being a sinner and, at the same time, made in the image of God.

These are obviously different approaches; but they have in common the consciousness of the necessity of a simultaneous "yes" and "no" concerning man before God—the dialectics of human existence. Barth would seem to go a step further in saying that nothing at all can be known about this existence of man save in the Word of God.

These theologians did a great service to Protestant Christianity by calling attention to the errors of liberalism. They did not escape ambiguity, however, especially when they discussed created existence, temporality, and how these are affected by the gracious love of God.

Bibliography: h. bouillard, Karl Barth, 3 v. (Paris 1957),v. 1 Genèse et évolution de la théologie dialectique. h. u. von balthasar, Karl Barth: Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theologie (Cologne 1962). j. fehr, Das Offenbarungs-Problem in der dialektischen und thomistischen Theologie (Freiburg 1939).

* * * * * * *

Karl Barth in 5 Minutes

by Stephen D. Morrison   |   6:44

AI Overview

Reformed theology emphasizes the authority of Scripture and God's sovereignty, often summarized by the "five solas" (sola Scriptura, sola gratia, etc.), while dialectical theology focuses on the paradoxical nature of God and the tension between human understanding and divine revelation, prioritizing a more dynamic and open approach to theological interpretation, often seen as more critical of traditional theological frameworks.

Essentially, Reformed theology tends to be more structured and based on clear biblical doctrines, while dialectical theology emphasizes the mystery and unknowable aspects of God, leaving more room for interpretation and ongoing dialogue with contemporary issues.

Key differences:

• Focus on Scripture - Reformed theology strongly emphasizes the Bible as the sole source of authority ("sola Scriptura"), whereas dialectical theology, while still valuing scripture, may interpret it more freely in light of contemporary concerns.

• God's Sovereignty - Reformed theology typically holds a strong view of God's sovereignty, including predestination, while dialectical theology may present a more nuanced perspective on God's will and human freedom.

• Approach to Doctrine - Reformed theology tends to present a more systematic and well-defined set of doctrines, while dialectical theology embraces tension and paradox, often avoiding definitive answers on certain theological questions.

Historical Context:

• Reformed Theology - Associated with the Protestant Reformation, particularly the teachings of John Calvin, emphasizing doctrines like "grace alone" (sola gratia) and "faith alone" (sola fide).

• Dialectical Theology - Developed in the 20th century, primarily by theologians like Karl Barth, as a response to the perceived over-rationalization of theology and the challenges of modernity.

* * * * * * *

The Essential Van Til –

What is Dialectical Theology?

article link

by James J. Cassidy

January 15, 2018

[notes and annotations are mine - r.e. slater]

In The New Modernism, Van Til identifies the Theology of Crisis with “dialectical theology.” But what is dialectical theology? Van Til explains that dialectical theology is “at bottom activistic and positivistic.” But what in the world does that mean? He explains: “God’s being and God’s work are said to be one and the same” (p. 3). In other words, Barth’s theology is actualistic. “Actualism” is a distinctly modern approach to metaphysics, or the study of the nature of reality. It is the question of being qua being. Metaphysics seeks to discover what the essence of something or someone is.

Standing over against dialectical theology – which Van Til equates with “modern theology” as a whole – is the Reformed Faith which is “non-activistic theology” (ibid). Continuing his thesis, dialectical theology (or, Crisis Theology) and Reformed Theology are opposed to one another. But how are they opposed?

THESIS: Dialectical Theology

vs.

ANTITHESIS: Reformed Theology

In order to answer that question we have to explain why it is that Van Til associates dialectical theology with modern theology:

Modern thought, going back at least to Kant, rejects the older metaphysical tradition. That tradition is characterized by the influence of Greek metaphysical thought, especially as it influenced Western theology through Thomas Aquinas. 

• This mode of metaphysics adheres to the idea that everything has its own particular static nature (i.e., a nature that does not change). In this mode of thinking God was understood, according to modern thinkers, as a static and abstract nature, essence, or substance.

• An example of this would be in the traditional doctrine of God’s immutability. Modern thinking said that this makes God out to be aloof, cold, unfeeling and abstract. He cannot change or adjust to situations. In short, he has nothing to do with us here and now.

• Modern thought with its rejection of medieval metaphysics proposed instead for us to think about being or ontology in dynamic terms. In this way we understand God not in terms of an abstract substance, but rather as a concrete, dynamic and living act. This is the actualism (or, more commonly used is the term “activism”) of which Van Til speaks. God’s identity, his being, is understood only in terms of his acts relative to us his creatures.

Now, Van Til sees this approach to metaphysics, or ontology, as opposed to the older traditional approach. He says only in the Reformed Faith is God “wholly self-contained.”[1] What does that mean? It means, in short, that God is in no way identified or understood as existing in a way that is dependent upon the creature or his acts relative to it. This is in keeping with the older theology proper which understood God as being per se. God in himself does not progress or become. He is himself perfect in his being, pure act with no potentiality. That means his interaction with the creature is completely unnecessary to who he is.

But standing over against this traditional view is Barth’s commitment to the terms for ontology set by modernity. Liberalism did not like the cold, aloof God of traditional theology. So they made God to draw near to man in an immanent relationship to the creature. Liberalism was committed to actualistic ontology, identifying God with his acts toward creature.

• Barth opposed liberalism and emphasized God’s transcendence. But – and this is Van Til’s great observation – while emphasizing God’s transcendence Barth at the same time refused to surrender the modern and liberal commitment to actualistic ontology.

• However, rather than God being identified with the creature in an immanent act, for Barth God is identified with his transcendent act of electing grace. For Barth God is necessarily gracious because in a transcendent act of his own freedom he chooses to always and everywhere be the God who forgives in Jesus Christ.

• Therefore, as I try to show in my book, God’s eternity is not a purely eternal attribute.[2] But his eternity is simultaneously his time for us in Jesus Christ. In other words, God from all of eternity is not “self-contained” but has his being identified with his act of grace for us in Christ.

And so, here – no less than in liberalism – God is dependent on the creature for his being. Creation and redemption (not to mention revelation) for Barth are not contingent acts of God, but necessary acts which give identity to the question of who he is.

Actuality dictates ontology

And for the older orthodox Reformed view that is a completely contrary starting point for understanding God. For the older view, God’s being (ontology) dictates the activity of God in time. God’s acts are consistent with - and flow from - who he is in-and-of himself. Only this way can we say in any true and meaningful way that God acts in perfect freedom. As the answer to the children’s catechism goes: "Can God do all things? Yes, God can do all his holy will."

In these simple – yet profound – words we discover the reason why Van Til is so clear: Dialectical Theology and Reformed Theology are – and must be – sworn enemies. There is no common ground between them.

---

[1] When Van Til speaks about “the Reformed Faith” that is representative shorthand for Reformed orthodoxy. Particularly as it comes to expression in great Reformed church creeds and confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries. It is certainly a legitimate criticism here that Van Til uses a term that is both too imprecise and narrow. To be sure, there is enough variety in the history of Reformed theology and Reformed confessions to say that “the Reformed faith” is not as monolithic as Van Til seems here to assume. While we may grant that point it is important to note that Van Til’s work is not so much concerned with historical theology and the nuances found in the Reformed tradition, rather his work is “frankly polemical” (p. 3). But the granted point need not detract us because despite all the variety that there is in the Reformed confessional tradition, one thing most certainly is not: actualistic ontology.

[2] See God’s Time For Us: Barth’s Reconciliation of Eternity and Time in Jesus Christ (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016).

*James J. Cassidy is the pastor of South Austin Presbyterian Church. He graduated in 2014 from Westminster Theological Seminary with the Ph.D in systematic theology writing on the theology of Karl Barth. He is the author of God’s Time For Us: Barth on the Reconciliation of Eternity and Time in Jesus Christ (Lexham Press).

* * * * * * *

Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics - How to Read Karl Barth

Church Dogmatics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Church Dogmatics (German: Kirchliche Dogmatik) is the four-volume theological summa and magnum opus of Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth and was published in thirteen books from 1932 to 1967. The fourth volume of the Church Dogmatics (CD) is unfinished, and only a fragment of the final part-volume was published, and the remaining lecture notes were published posthumously. The planned fifth volume was never written.

Academic significance

Widely regarded as one of the most important theological works of the century, it represents the pinnacle of Barth's achievement as a theologian. Barth published the Church Dogmatics I/1 (the first part-volume of the Dogmatics) in 1932 and continued working on it until his death in 1968, by which time it was 6 million words long in twelve part-volumes. The material published as the Church Dogmatics was originally delivered in lecture format to students at Bonn (1932) and then Basel (1935–1962), with his final incomplete volume (IV.4) produced in 1967 outside the realm of academia.^[1]

Content

The Church Dogmatics is divided into five volumes: the "Doctrine of the Word of God" (CD I), the "Doctrine of God" (CD II), the "Doctrine of Creation" (CD III), the unfinished "Doctrine of Reconciliation" (CD IV) and the unwritten "Doctrine of Redemption" (CD V). The five volumes of the Church Dogmatics were published as the following part-volumes:

1. CD I/1: The Doctrine of the Word of God [the Revelation or Knowability of God by God], Part 1: Barth lays down the foundations of undertaking such a task. In this volume he discusses the purpose and goal of the series, and the form, nature, and know-ability of the revelation. He then embarks on a thorough yet foundational exploration of the Trinity's role in the revelation of God to humanity.^[2]
2. CD I/2: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2: Barth discusses the incarnation of the Word, the Spirit's particular (yet general) role therein, the nature and role of Scripture with respect to the Word, and the eager response of the Church.^[3]

1. CD II/1: The Doctrine of God [the Person and Work of God], Part 1: Barth begins by presenting a foundation for the knowledge of God, followed by the reality (Being and Nature) of God.^[4]
2. CD II/2: The Doctrine of God, Part 2: In One of Barth's more notable volumes, he discusses two major topics, the Election of God and the Command of God. Inside, Barth discusses predestination, its human response, and the ontological foundations thereof.^[5]

1. CD III/1: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 1: In one of his shorter volumes, Barth discusses the relationship between Covenant and Creation as well as the purpose of Creation as God relates to humankind.^[6]
2. CD III/2: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 2: Here, Barth discusses the God-human relationship from the human point of view. He discusses such things as humanity as the covenant-partner of God, the semi-autonomous being, and the still-dependent being.^[7]
3. CD III/3: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 3: This volume dives into such issues as divine providence, God as Father and Lord, and the relationship between God and "nothingness". The volume closes by exploring the Kingdom of Heaven and its constituents.^[8]
4. CD III/4: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 4: In this volume Barth focuses much of his energy on ethical reactions to creation, exploring these inside four realms of certain human liberties: freedom before God, freedom in fellowship, freedom for life, and freedom in limitation. This volume most directly explores the actions of human beings in response to the Word of God.^[9]

1. CD IV/1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation [and Redemption to God by God], Part 1: One of the lengthiest of the Church Dogmatics is also considered by Barth to be the most important: "I have been very conscious of the very special responsibility laid on the theologian at this center of all Christian knowledge. To fail here is to fail everywhere."^[10] This volume sets out to discuss certain aspects of Jesus Christ's role as the servant of God. It explores Christ's obedience to God's command, the pride and fall of humankind, the justification of humankind, and the Holy Spirit's action in the ensuing Christian community.^[11]
2. CD IV/2: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 2: This volume centers on the actions of Jesus Christ as servant of God and Lord of humanity. It includes such discourses as the exaltation of Christ, the sloth of humankind, the sanctification of humankind, and the Christian life in community under the Spirit. The volume ends with a deep reflection on the interaction of the Spirit with Love inside the Christian community.^[12]
3. CD IV/3: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 3: This volume was printed as a two-book set commonly known as CD IV/3.1 and CD IV/3.2 respectively. CD IV/3.1 centers its efforts on Jesus Christ being the true Witness of God, and with the glory of the Mediator (Jesus Christ) and the condemnation of humanity.^[13] CD IV/3.2 continues the theme of Jesus Christ as true Witness of God. Here he discusses the particular vocation of human beings, its goal, and the Holy Spirit's part in the sending of the Christian community, and discusses Christian hope.^[14]
4. CD IV/4: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 4: Also known as The Christian Life, Barth's final section consists of Christ's command for the Christian response (to salvation via Jesus Christ) as an ethical response, founded with zeal and striving for righteousness.^[15]

Scope

Barth's original plan for the Church Dogmatics was as follows: "There would be [in addition to volume I.[1] a second half-volume of pretty much the same size, completing the Prolegomena, the doctrine of Revelation. The second volume would contain the doctrine of God, the third the doctrine of Creation, the fourth the doctrine of Reconciliation, the fifth the doctrine of Redemption."^[16] Barth died before writing any of the fifth volume. A complete outline of the Church Dogmatics can be found in the Barth installment of the Making of Modern Theology series.^[17] The series was originally written in German and was later translated into English under the editorial leadership of T. F. Torrance and G. W. Bromiley and many others.

References

1. ^ Mueller, D: "Karl Barth", page 48. Word Books, 1972.
2. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics I.1, pp. XV–XVI. T. & T. Clark, 1969.
3. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics I.2, pp. XIII–XIV. T. & T. Clark, 1963.
4. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics II.1, pp. IX–X. T. & T. Clark, 1980.
5. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics II.2, page XI. T. & T. Clark, 1957.
6. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics III.1, page XI. T. & T. Clark, 1986.
7. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics III.2, page XIII. T. & T. Clark, 1960.
8. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics III.3, page XIV. T. & T. Clark, 1976.
9. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics III.4, page XV. T. & T. Clark, 1978.
10. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics IV.1, page IX. T. & T. Clark, 1961.
11. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics IV.1, page XI. T. & T. Clark, 1961.
12. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics IV.2, page XV. T. & T. Clark, 1967.
13. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics IV.3.1, page XV. T. & T. Clark, 1988.
14. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics IV.3.2, page XV. T. & T. Clark, 1988.
15. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics IV.4, page V. T. & T. Clark, 1981.
16. ^ Barth, K: Church Dogmatics I.1, page XII. T. & T. Clark, 1969.
17. ^ Green, C ed. : Karl Barth, Theologian of Freedom, pp 169–170. T. & T. Clark, 1989.