Barth Reflection God Here and Now

“To be sure, some scholars have in recent decades argued that justification is not the center of Pauline thought but is rather a subsidiary doctrine. In its place they have proposed other integrating doctrines. Barth thinks that the confession of Jesus Christ is more basic than justification, which he defends—although he offers a novel doctrine of both: Justification he considers but a new insight into an already universally effective Christological salvation. Yet many others, including J. Gresham Machen and Leon Morris, have championed the evangelical mainstream view that justification is basic and central.”

Even early church writers contested the validity of what Luther referred to as an “epistle of straw”, even denigrating it as a leftover from Judaic writers. Even recent commentary writer Sophie Laws referred to “the epistle of James is an oddity. It lacks almost all of what might be thought to be the distinctive marks of Christian faith and practice.” The Luther casts further doubt on the authenticity of this epistle.

The process by which Scripture has been preserved and compiled is one whose history is worth noting. The early church had many opportunities to share the Good News of Christ via word of mouth, but from the time of Christ’s resurrection until the mid-second century, there had not been a single culmination of writings considered to be essential for the purposes of

The third section dissects the formation of the New Testament with more historical context and views of other writings defined as Gnostic writing. Bruce explains the spoken words of the apostles carried as much authority as their written words and gives an in depth explanation how the Gospels and Pauline writings were viewed by the Church Fathers. The rest of the section demonstrates the Church Fathers and their views of what was to be considered scripture and the councils that affirmed the inspired scripture.

Sacred texts and writings are very beneficial for Christian people since they are the word of God and can be deliberated as supportive indication of understanding the principle beliefs of Christianity which include the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the nature of god and the nature of trinity, revelation and salvation. This essay aim’s at assessing the significant role of the sacred text in providing authentic information in regards to sacred texts.

The Bible and its text is trustworthy and reliable to its fullest, but on this journey in seeking the word of God can using it in how daily life is where arises an important question; How now is to understand the idea of the ‘Word of God” and its implications for how Christian theology is to be done. Karl Barth (1886-1968) a Swiss Protestant theologian who is one of the most substantial and influential recent works of Christian Theology in the twentieth century. In this text analysis of one of Barth teaching he breaks down in explaining what he means by “reflection” on the Word of God. Barth first address this three part: “the Word of God in a First Address in which God himself and God alone is the speaker, in a second address in which the

The book also focuses on Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Jesus discusses those that are blessed and why they are blessed and also the kingdom of heaven. Jesus discusses faith-community and what is required of disciples including reconciliation with others. The book discusses Jesus and his righteousness. Jesus gives instructions in dealing with those who cause harm to is folowers and believers. The book addresses the question as to whether to literally or figuratively take the commands of Jesus.

In the study of Christian theology, scripture plays an essential role in the revelation of the Doctrine of God. Scriptures are “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) words, written by the Holy Spirit through divine inspiration of prophets. They are necessary for the proper understanding of the doctrine of God, the self-revelation of God, the proof of God’s existence, and for the discernment of false doctrines.

In doing so, we can discover that final authority is not in and of scripture itself but of the Triune God who is the Author of scripture. The second obstacle to consider is that many have dismissed scripture as a book of Israelitic & Christian stories. Wright contends that these stories are told to inform us of “internal dynamics” of the past so as to engage us in the present for transformation into Christ-likeness. (p.25). Thirdly, Wright asserts that the question of scripture’s authority should not be viewed as a list of rules where God condescends to man. Rather, scripture should be received as God’s purpose to save and renew the entire world by authorizing the church—God’s agent in the world—with His mission through the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is imperative that biblical scholars “see the role of scripture not simply as being [informative about or revelatory of God’s truth] but as a means of God’s action in and through us.” (p.28)

Recalling Barth’s comments in the preface to Romans II on interpreters’ tendency to render the Bible harmless, Jennings retrieval of Acts’ “erotic God” (12) removes the complacency of the “historian’s optic” (2) by giving discrete attention to the materiality of creation. An immediate hermeneutical upshot of this spatial attention is that history itself must be understood as a kind of creature. This means that, like other creatures, history must witness to its Creator, but never attempt to capture her. Acts is then not a history box that contains architectural materials for the foundation of a tradition on which the church stands. Such thinking reproduces historicist “monument thinking,” which returns Acts to a colonial process of “knowledge acquisition and accumulation” (3). Rather, it is through the “creature that is Luke-Acts [that] our seeing and sensing align with the presence of the Spirit here and now” (4). To see and sense Acts as a creature entails yielding to the touch of the Spirit’s movements and disruptions it discloses, the divine presence with which this story intertwines and bears witness.

For Barth, the Bible is not itself the revelation of God. Rather, it is the record of the revelation of God. It is a way by which the church recalls and attests to God's work in the past (284). We therefore do the Bible a disservice when we think that it is God's revelation. It is meant to point

Barth regularly discussed the flaws of 'man ' and how it is 'man ' whom Jesus saves.123 Although it shall be assumed when Barth refers to 'man ' instead of 'a man ', he will be discussing the entire of humanity, his choice of language alone poses issues in his theology. However, this is a complex matter and will be discussed shortly. Ambiguity is found again in Barth 's writings in his consistent writing of “we” and “our”.456 He does not

In the previous section, I have argued that Barth’s understanding of God’s being in act helps us preserve the ontological integrity of the triune God in the incarnation. In this section, I will delve into the theological understanding of Christ’s death with respect to the Trinitarian atonement. First, I elaborate how Barth understands the death of Christ in terms of God’s being in act. I then argue how his understanding enriches our theological understanding of the Trinitarian atonement.

Throughout the bible, and reading it once more by Marcus Borg, a common idea as it relates to a religious experience, is that the Bible is a human product. Throughout chapter two, Borg continuously describes the Bible as being a product of humans. He explains on page 22 that he sees scripture through the lens of the Bible being a human product, meaning that it is the “product of two ancient communities” (22). He believed that what the Bible explains things to be are words from the communities of ancient Israel and the early Christian movement. “We cannot talk about God (or anything else) except with the words, symbols, stories, concepts, and categories known to us, for they are the only language we have”, made me think about the idea that

Mcgowan’s description of Jesus as the disabled God makes sense to me because Jesus is the human form of God. Like most humans, Jesus goes through many burdens and was considered a plebeian by society. Human burdens Jesus has felt include feeling sadness, fear and being physically hurt as he was left with scars after being nailed to the cross. Jesus had a lot of emotional and physical burdens in his life, therefore, compared to the all powerful God in heaven, Jesus is the disabled God. Additionally, we see Jesus as a humble person since he lived through hardships that include being hated on and ultimately killed.