Home  About us  Contact
 

Barth's Theology (barth + theology)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

What's Interesting about Karl Barth?

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Issue 1 2002
Barth as Polemical, Descriptive Theologian
Much of the interest in Karl Barth's theology has been found in the formal elements of his theology, whether a single thought-form or multiple forms. Most of that interest focuses on Barth's epistemology or his ,actualism'. This article suggests that material theological loci, expounded descriptively, and often with a polemical intent, were at the heart of Barth's work, and are still the richest vein of his theology. Metaphysics and epistemology were subservient to material dogmatic affirmations. The article closes with some observations on the continuing relevance of Barth's theology. [source]

RETURNING BARTH TO ANSELM

MODERN THEOLOGY, Issue 3 2008
TIMOTHY STANLEY
Barth's Anselm This article focuses on Barth's explication of Anselm's Proslogion 2-4 in his book on Anselm and attempts to show how Anselm helped clarify for Barth the ontological nature of his own early theology, in particular what he meant by the "is" in his affirmation "God is God." Our contention is that Barth's continual pointing to Anselm's Fides Quaerens Intellectum as a vital key to his own theology should not be overlooked. In fact, we argue that only by returning Barth to Anselm in this way can we begin to understand more thoroughly one of the key contributions of Barth's theology generally and its potential relevance to contemporary onto-theological debates. [source]

Theology as Conversational Event: Karl Barth, the Ending of "Dialogue" and the Beginning of "Conversation"

MODERN THEOLOGY, Issue 4 2003
John C. McDowell
This essay deals with a commonly voiced concern with Barth's theology as expressed in the form that his theology illegitimately secures itself from critique, polices its narrow location assiduously and only lets in a few carefully vetted others when convinced that they can be useful. In contrast, through exploring John Milbank's distinction between dialogue and conversation it becomes possible to critique James Barr's and Clark Pinnock's understandings of "conversation" in a way that serves to hear Barth, and what it entails for theology to be "conversational", significantly differently. Indeed, it will be maintained that "conversation" is an appropriate metaphor to apply to what Barth was doing with his theology. [source]