Karl Barth's Contribution To The Doctrine Of God Summary

1). Copernicus came from Poland, a very Catholic nation, which explains his choice to dedicate his book to Pope Paul III. John Calvin, a theologian who founded the Calvinist sect of Protestantism, was very fond of astronomy, saying that it shows the wisdom of God (Doc. 2). Other religious figures condemned the work of scientists, like Giovanni Ciampoli, who in a letter to Galileo insisted that Galileo censure facts due to the disagreement of church doctrines to the findings of Galileo (Doc. 3). Other philosophers merged their ideas on the sciences to religious beliefs to please the church and their own traditional beliefs. In a book by Walter Charleton, an English doctor and philosopher, he states that the creation of atoms and arrangement of them could only be achieved by a higher power (Doc. 8). His occupation as a doctor may have led him to this conclusion as the human body is a very complex machine, and it seemed that only God would be capable of engineering such an organism. Another philosopher, Gottfried Leibniz, compares God to an engineer manipulating his machines, further affecting the work of scientists by meshing religious and scientific ideas (Doc. 12). Many scientists’ works were condemned by the church at this time for blasphemy, so many turned to deism, where God made the Universe like a clock and let it run on its own. Many scientists’ work during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was

The following essay shall consider the given extract from Schleiermacher’s “On Religion; Speeches to its Cultured Despisers”. Schleiermacher’s fifth and final speech explores the range of religions presentations viewed across the world and how this impacts the idea of the plurality of God. Not only this but in his conclusion, Schleiermacher puts forward the idea that Christianity can be viewed as separate from all other religions as the most accurate form of religion, and his reasons for this will take up the majority of this essay 's discussion.

In conversation with Daniel Migliore give an account of what it means to confess that God is triune. Give care to an explication of “economic and immanent trinity,” and perichoresis.

“26 Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’” Genesis 1:26a, 1:27

The small book A little exercise for young theologians is an opening lecture to students of theology given by theologian Helmut Thielicke. This book is especially important for students who are beginning their training in theology, but it also is crucial for those who are seasoned students of theology as it is a good reminder of what students need to know when studying the nature and character of God. Thielicke is brief in the lecture, but he is profound in what he says. It is an important lecture for any student of theology. This review will summarize the lecture while making critiques and provide a conclusion.

He was intimidated ,In a way, to share his ideas. Most people followed Aristotelianism and did not like him challenging them. This is quite evident in the multiple drafts that he had, afraid to release them. He developed a method for philosophers to use to correctly judge the world surrounding them. He agreed with the fact that humans old often skew what there senses were telling them. Though he disagreed that the sensory system was not important, in fact he thought it was the most useful tool to discover the world surrounding them. Assuming that the brain could misinterpret something meant that everything should be doubted before assuming it to be truth. In order to test this he developed a method to experiment and manipulate nature, in an attempt to disprove themselves. For example to test people if sickness came from external sources you would have to expose healthy individuals to coldness, wetness,or sick people to see if these sources resulted in more individuals becoming sick. Knowing that possible contamination might have occurred the exposure must be able to have similar results again and again. The purpose of the method was not to prove something right, yet it was to disprove assumed truths.

In regards to the Liberal Protestant theology, together Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer rejected the liberal heritage. Both men formulated their own opinions towards the Liberal Protestant theology. Among these two men, Karl Barth was considered to be in his early years, the most radical crisis theologian. The challenges that were brought forth against the Liberal theology with Crisis theology, led to the formation of a Neo-Orthodox, Christo-centric Christology by Karl Barth.

I agree with Fredrick Buechner’s observation that “what a theologian is doing is essentially examining as honestly as he can the rough-and-tumble of his own experience with all its ups and downs, and mysteries and loose ends, and expressing in logical, abstract terms the truths about human life and about God that he believes he has found implicit there” (The Sacred Journey, 1982, p.1). I agree that theologians do speak about their own life experiences in regards to what he or she believes to be true about God and life. Theologians are detectives who are examining life for deeper understanding in order to tell the story to others. The only crime scene that they have is their own life and the lives of those around them to observe and they are giving their honest interpretation of the data they collect. Therefore, I think that to the best of their ability, and with what they know at the time that they are speaking or writing their work, there are speaking honestly based on what they know to be true.

He employed skepticism as a method of achieving certainty. “I will doubt everything that can possibly be doubted and if anything is left, and then it will be absolutely certain.” Then I will consider what it is about this certainty that places it beyond doubt and that will provide me with a criterion of truth and knowledge.

on what he wrote. His beliefs are described in On the Soul and On the

It is widely accepted by both believers and atheists that humans have a moral obligation to do good and avoid evil. These moral obligations are objective facts and are based on duties that arise from the way things are and not from desires of a person. The moral obligation is viewed differently by both atheists and believers (Jeff, 2013). Since atheists do not believe in the existence of God and believe that the universe came into form through chance, the question always presented to them is on what grounds are the moral obligations developed? On the other hand, the religious view sees that moral obligation is grounded in the Creator, and it is further rooted in the fact that humans were created with a purpose. The religious view is more compatible than that of atheists. It is more acceptable to state that moral conscience is God?s voice within the soul as moral values exist in a person?s mind and will. The idea of moral principles somehow floating on their own apart from any person sounds impossible. The compatibility of moral obligation to the creator of the universe is easily acceptable than that of materialism and belief in objective values (Peter & Ronald, 1994). Therefore, the moral argument provides evidence for the existence of God as it states that the moral obligation of human can not originate from a random collision of particles but rather from the creator of the

In order to achieve his goal, he used the method of doubt. He put all beliefs, idea, thoughts, and matter in doubt. If he came across anything

The first conceptual difference of theological realm derives from the necessity of respecting not only the unity and oneness of the subject at issue (God) but also its simplicity that should be in conflict with any perspective of divisibility. The theological inapplicability of dualistic scheme relating to natural subsistence makes Gilbert speak about “essence” (essentia) referring to quo est and that’s the “divinity” (divinitas), and quod est designating the trinity (of one deus). Beyond the eventual theological and heretic questions, it is relevant to highlight that in Trinitarian doctrine the distinction of these two elements and the enumeration of the three persons are claimed to exclude any possibility of being not one quite in virtue of being three and not more.

I believe he felt within himself that there was no need to argue, since the fact that the actions of his work did not speak volume to them, nothing could. Besides, the majority gather was against him. Moreover, being the mighty one in battle, he did not to prove anything to anyone. Likewise, he had not only been condemn and but also found guilty. “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, he opened not

What is the theology of this passage? The theology in this passage is so rich. This passage is not just a simple prayer or a speech but the prayer is filled with theological perspective. First, Hezekiah says אַתָּה־ה֤וּא הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לְבַדְּךָ֔. This phrase emphasizes on the doctrine of God. In the doctrine of God, there is an emphasis that God is the only God. And in the doctrine of God, we believe in the Triune God. This is an emphasis to one true God. There is no implication of the triune God, but the claim for monotheistic God is surely present that there is no other God but one God as in Deut 6.