"We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and folly to Gentiles". In so writing, St. Paul stated in its briefest form the scandal of the Christian faith. To human reason it is nonsense to suppose that a man who grew up and lived like other men, and who ultimately died on a cross, could at the same time be the Son of God, equal to God, eternal like God, and Creator of the world with Him. Contrary to the painfully-evolved and carefully formulated conclusion reached by philosophers, that God is one, and diametrically opposed to the monotheistic divine revelation given to Israel, the belief that Jesus was Son of God and equal to His Father seemed; when it was first postulated, to imply some kind of flaw in the indivisibility of God. Men were being asked to believe that they could see God incarnate, that is, in a being of flesh and blood. Yet all our faith hovers around this precise point.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The thesis is a study of the political relevance of the views of Karl Barth on Church and State as they relate to the apartheid State in South Africa. In other words, the thesis deals with the part that should be played by the Church in opposing the demonic power of apartheid. Barth's allembracing theology could be used as a catalyst to expose the evil of apartheid and the way in which this evil could be eradicated, in preparation for a democratic order. In Chapter 1, the investigator argues in favour of the use of a methodology which takes praxis as its focus. This suggests that praxis develops theory and the latter informs praxis. Praxis and theory affect each other, thus creating a circular movement wherein both theory and praxis are both individually necessary (or the development of the other). In Chapter 2, the investigator again describes Barth's early theology. A predominant characteristic of Barth's early theology is its concern about the Word of God as incarnated in Jesus Christ, and the attempt to focus its attention on the plight of workers in the employ of the capitalistic system. As the thesis develops in chapter 3, the researcher further shows Barth's contributions to the struggle between the Church and National Socialism and between the Church and communism, more especially in the countries falling within the communistic bloc. In Chapter 4, the investigator focuses strongly on the struggle of the Church against the tenets of apartheid ideology, using Barth's theology as a mediating voice. At the end of the thesis in chapter 5, the investigator deems it necessary to make suggestions and recommendations to round off the argument begun in the first chapter. The suggestions and recommendations are subjected to what obtains in Barth's theological ethics on the relations between the Church and State. By so doing, the investigator suggests ways and means by which South Africans can successfully work out a constitution which will enable all people in South Africa to prepare themselves for a new dispensation. / Philosophy, Practical & Systematic Theology / D. Th. (Theological Ethics)

However reluctant he may be about providing details, Karl Barth dares to affirm the coming resurrection, even in the strong corporeal sense of the Apostles Creed, “I believe in . . . the resurrection of the flesh.” At the heart of Barth’s creative approach is an equation between revelation and resurrection. Indeed, everything said about the human addressed now in revelation is to be said about the human at the coming resurrection, including the remarkable fact that resurrection raises the “flesh” (inasmuch as God has revealed Himself to those “in the flesh”). Barth’s early training inculcated in him dialectical themes that would emerge throughout his career. His early work is dominated by a sense of encounter with the present but transcendent God, an encounter described in terms of the raising of the dead. Human existence is sublated – “dissolved and established” – unto a higher order in God. Yet even after Barth abandons the resurrection of the dead as his preferred theological axiom, he portrays eschatology proper in terms of the human sublated in the divine presence. Therefore, in Church Dogmatics he expresses the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh in three primary ways: eternalization, manifestation and incorporation. The human, delimited as he or she is by death, is made durable in God, obtaining the gift of eternalization. The human, ambiguous in the creaturely mode of earthly life, has one’s true identity revealed with Christ at His return, and obtains the gift of manifestation with the divine. The human, isolated as he or she is in one’s autonomy, is incorporated into the body of Christ by His Spirit, obtaining the gift of communion. In each of these expressions of resurrection Barth desires to preserve fleshliness. His account, however, entails a certain loss of temporality, creatureliness and particularity of the human when it comes to the final state. Instead of being resurrected from the dead in the strong corporeal sense, human bodies appear to be memorialized, deified, recapitulated. Though written with the language of the Antiochene and Reformed schools, Barth’s position enjoys the same strengths and suffers the same weaknesses of a more Alexandrian or Lutheran theological trajectory. Like each of the traditional lines of Christian thought about the resurrection of the flesh, Barth gravitates toward an eschatology centered around the human’s vision of God in the heavenly life. To this extent Barth’s creative treatment of the resurrection of the dead can be understood as broadly Christian, even if he risks undermining the very flesh he hopes to save.

Thesis (D. Th.)--University of Stellenbosch, 2005. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Christian confessions are frequently seen as Christian documents that have nothing to do with the subject of politics. This study endeavours to investigate the relationship between Christian confessions and politics, looking particularly at how the relationship between them has been construed in the theology of Karl Barth, the Barmen Declaration and the Belhar Confession. It concludes that a relationship between confession and politics is unavoidable, yet this relationship is only best comprehended when one looks at it in a confessional manner. A ‘confessional manner’ of reading Karl Barth’s theology is explained. Issues such as the primacy of the Word of God, the church as the subject of theology, the public witness of Christ to the world, the political context in which this theology takes place, as well as the ethical implications which emanates from this theology characterises confessional theology. The usage of the concept “confession” is informed by Barth’s observation that as Christians we are obliged to speak about God, but we are human beings and therefore cannot speak about God in an manner that suggest that God is fully comprehensible. By confining itself not merely to his monumental work – the Church Dogmatics – but also to Barth’s preceding and succeeding works, this research is able to render a detailed illustration of how Barth viewed the relationship of confessions to politics. Chapter 1 establishes the confessional nature of his theology. This chapter traces the most influential people and events that shaped the confessional nature of Barth’s theology. These include Luther, Kant, the Blumhardts, as well as Calvin and the Reformed theology in particular. Chapter 2 investigates whether Barth was true to his 1925 understanding of what constituted a Reformed confession when he was confronted with the need to confess in 1934. The historicity of the Barmen Theological Declaration is explored to illustrate that Barth continued to view theology in a confessional manner. Chapter 3 deals with Barth’s Church Dogmatics, illustrating that Barth never wanted his work to be seen as a complete event, but preferred to see it as a process. It argues that contrary to the 1930s where Barth’s theology insisted on the essence of confessional theology, the entire Church Dogmatics (especially the parts that proceeds the era indicated) should be read as confessional theology. Chapter 4 deals with the Belhar Confession that was adopted in South African in 1986. Admitting that the Belhar Confession was influenced by the theology of Barth, the characteristics of confessional theology are also explored in this Confession. It is argued that many have failed to see the Belhar Confession’s call for embodiment, because they have interpreted this Confession without regard for the new church order. Finally, it is argued that the confessional nature of Belhar allows this Confession to contribute positively to the current democratic dispensation in South Africa. It is admitted that the Belhar Confession is a confession of its time and. It is also argued that a confessional theology can be a suitable theological alternative that can contribute to the current theological deliberations. Additionally a confessional theology can provide a platform of discussing ways in which theology and politics, which remain intertwined, can both exist side by side, without the one dictating to the other. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Christelike belydenisse word dikwels beskou as Christelike verklarings wat geen verband met die politiek het nie. Gevolglik is daar 'n neiging om hierdie dokumente bloot te sien as teologies maar nie polities nie. Hierdie navorsing bespreek dié siening, maar voer aan dat, hoewel hierdie dokumente nie as sodanig polities is nie, ons tog nie die politieke kontekste waaruit hulle voortspruit, kan ignoreer nie. Twee belydenisse word gebruik om hierdie punt te illustreer, naamlik die Barmen Teologiese Verklaring (1934) in Nazi-Duitsland, en die Belharbelydenis (1986) gedurende die apartheidsregering in Suid-Afrika. Die gevolgtrekking van hierdie studie is dat daar in die teologie van Karl Barth én die Belhar Belydenis 'n onvermydelike verhouding tussen die Christelike belydenis en politiek bestaan. Die woord ”belydenis” word hier in verband gebring met Barth se interpretasie van die opdrag om oor God te praat uit hoofde van ons Christelike oortuigings, en ons onvermoë om oor God te praat weens ons menslike feilbaarheid. Hiervolgens is belydende teologie gekant teen neigings om oor God te praat op 'n manier wat voorgee dat God in sy volheid aan ons bekend is. Vyf opsigtelike kenmerke in die teologie van Barth word ondersoek. Hierdie kenmerke illustreer die mate waartoe teologie en politiek aan mekaar verwant is, en dat politiek altyd in Barth se teologie geïmpliseer word. Die studie voer ook aan dat Barth se teologie relevant is omdat dit probeer om die Woord op 'n ander manier te interpreteer na aanleiding van die spesifieke konteks waarbinne daar oor God gepraat word. Die studie beweer verder dat Barth se hele teologie as belydende teologie gelees moet word. Die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat belydende teologie verskil van “konfessionalisme” en altyd die beliggaming van dít wat bely word, impliseer. Deur hierdie kenmerke van belydende teologie in die teologie van Barth waar te neem, word daar besef dat sy teologie steeds ‘n deurslaggewende rol in ander teologiese kontekste speel. Om hierdie rede word daar aangevoer dat die Belharbelydenis grootliks deur die teologie van Barth beïnvloed is. Die debat oor die Belharbelydenis bring ook belangrike vrae oor die teologiese situasie in Suid-Afrika na vore. Ten slotte word daar aangevoer dat belydende teologie 'n nuttige teologie is wat teologie in die algemeen kan beskerm teen die kloue van “geteologiseerde politiek”. Hierdie teologie kan dus steeds 'n konstruktiewe bydrae tot die huidige teologiese debatte in 'n demokratiese Suid-Afrika lewer.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation is an attempt to show the centrality of prayer in the Christian life, in faith and obedience, according to Karl Barth. It is argued that the Christian life was not the focus of Barth’s theology. The focus of his theology was the divine reality upon which the Christian life is grounded and in which it continually finds its own reality. In its correspondence to and dependence upon God’s reality, God’s Word and work, the Christian life is for Barth both faith and obedience, and at the core of faith and obedience, it is prayer. The inseparable relationship between faith, obedience and prayer, is not due to the nature of humanity, the Christian, or even the Christian life as such, but due to the divine reality which gives faith, obedience and prayer its reality. Faith and obedience are inseparably related. Both are equally impossible for humanity by its own power and capacity. It is only by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that humanity is justified and sanctified, thus turning its unbelief into faith and its disobedience into obedience. The unity of faith and obedience lies therein that they both form part of the one event of the reconciliation between God and humanity, which is accomplished in Jesus Christ. Both form part of the Self-revelation of this reconciliation by God’s Word. The reconciliation between God and humanity, revealed by the Word of God, does not depend on faith and obedience, but is effective by its own power and grace, which brings both faith and obedience simultaneously into existence. The reality of faith and obedience is a hidden reality, a divine reality, an eschatological reality, which is not externally observable, but can only be believed in faith, to which we are moving in obedience, and which we ask for in prayer. Faith and prayer are also inseparably related. Faith, knowledge of God, is a personal response to God’s gracious and miraculous Self-revelation, which humanity cannot produce by its own power. And therefore faith is to pray. Faith is always praying, for God’s Self-revelation never becomes the possession of the believer, but is always given anew, thus necessitating faith to always ask anew for God’s Self-revelation. Faith knows God in personal response, knows God in asking always anew, and therefore knows God in prayer. Faith only has knowledge of God by talking to God, by responding in prayer to God’s prior Self-revelation to faith, and by asking for God to reveal God-self always anew. Obedience and prayer are also inseparably related. Both obedience and prayer exist in the freedom of being bound unconditionally to God’s action and Word. Freedom is not freedom from obligation, but the freedom of living within the claim of God’s lordship over our lives. The freedom of obedience is the freedom to act in reaction to the action of God. It is the liberation from pondering over different possibilities, and the freedom for living in the one and only path laid before it, the path of obedience. The freedom of prayer is the freedom to respond in correspondence to the Word of God, by which it is addressed and claimed. It is the liberation from all other voices and claims, and the freedom to give witness to the one and only voice which claims its life in totality. Faith, prayer and obedience are inseparably related. All three form part of the one Christian life lived under the Lord, who is Lord over the whole of creation, and who is Lord over the whole of the Christian life. In faith, obedience and prayer the Christian lives in correspondence to God’s lordship over the world, the church and the individual. Becoming a Christian, means believing in Jesus Christ. It means continually looking away from oneself, to Jesus Christ, who justifies humanity despite its unbelief, despite its pride, despite its faith in itself. Faith discards trust in itself, and trusts Jesus Christ completely. Being a Christian, means obeying Jesus Christ. It means to surrender to Jesus Christ as the only Lord whom one is to obey in life and in death. As Jesus Christ sanctifies disobedient and slothful humanity, obedience is the freedom to rise and follow Jesus. Acting as a Christian, means praying with Jesus Christ. It means to ask in the Name of Jesus Christ, in the power and presence of Jesus Christ, in the grace and lordship of Jesus Christ, that we will be able to believe what we cannot believe by our own power, and that we will be able to obey what we cannot obey by our own power. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie proefskrif is ‘n poging om aan te dui dat gebed in die hart staan van die Christelike lewe, in beide geloof en gehoorsaamheid, volgens die teologie van Karl Barth. In hierdie studie word aangevoer dat die Christelike lewe nie die fokus van Barth se teologie was nie. Die fokus van sy teologie was die Goddelike werklikheid waarop die Christelike lewe gegrond is en vanwaar dit voortdurend ‘n eie werklikheid ontvang. In ooreenstemming met en in afhanklikheid van God se werklikheid, God se Woord en werk, is die Christelike lewe volgens Barth gelyktydig geloof en gehoorsaamheid, en in die kern van geloof en gehoorsaamheid, staan gebed. Die onskeibare verhouding tussen geloof, gehoorsaamheid en gebed, is nie vanweë die aard van die mens, die Christen, of selfs die Christelike lewe in sigself nie, maar vanweë die Goddelike realiteit wat aan geloof, gehoorsaamheid en gebed hul werklikheid skenk. Geloof en gehoorsaamheid staan in ‘n onskeibare verband tot mekaar. Beide is ewe onmoontlik vir mense in hul eie krag and vermoë. Dit is net deur die genade van God in Jesus Christus, deur die krag van die Heilige Gees, dat die mensdom geregverdig en geheilig word, waardeur ongeloof in geloof, en ongehoorsaamheid in gehoorsaamheid verander word. Die eenheid van geloof en gehoorsaamheid lê daarin dat beide deel uitmaak van die een gebeurtenis van versoening tussen God en mens, wat in Jesus Christus plaasvind. Beide maak deel uit van die Self-openbaring van hierdie versoening deur God se Woord. Die versoening tussen God en mens, wat die Woord van God openbaar, is nie afhanklik van geloof en gehoorsaamheid nie, maar is effektief in eie krag, deur genade, en dit bring beide geloof en gehoorsaamheid tot stand. Die werklikheid van geloof en gehoorsaamheid is ‘n verborge werklikheid, ‘n Goddelike werklikheid, ‘n eskatologiese werklikheid, wat nie van buite waarneembaar is nie, maar wat slegs in geloof geglo kan word, waarnatoe ons beweeg in gehoorsaamheid, en waarvoor ons vra in gebed. Geloof en gebed staan ook in ‘n onskeibare verband tot mekaar. Geloof, kennis van God, is ‘n persoonlike antwoord op God se genadige en wonderbaarlike Self-openbaring, wat die mens nie in eie krag kan skep nie. En daarom is geloof om te bid. Geloof bid voortdurend, want God se Self-openbaring raak nooit die besitting van die gelowige nie, maar word altyd opnuut gegee, wat dit noodsaaklik maak vir geloof om altyd opnuut te vra vir God se Self-openbaring. Geloof ken God deur ‘n persoonlike antwoord, deur altyd opnuut te vra, en daarom ken geloof vir God in gebed. Geloof het slegs kennis van God deur met God te praat, deur in gebed te antwoord op Gods voorafgaande Self-openbaring aan geloof, en deur vir God te vra om Godself altyd opnuut te openbaar. Gehoorsaamheid en gebed staan ook in ‘n onskeibare verband tot mekaar. Beide gehoorsaamheid en gebed bestaan in die vryheid om onvoorwaardelik gebonde te wees aan God se Woord en werk. Vryheid is nie vryheid van verpligtinge nie, maar die vryheid om te leef binne die aanspraak van God se heerskappy oor ons lewens. Die vryheid van gehoorsaamheid is die vryheid om aktief op te tree in reaksie op die aksie van God. Dit is om bevry te word van bepeinsing oor verskillende moontlikhede, en die vryheid om te leef vir die een en enigste pad wat voor sigself lê, die pad van gehoorsaamheid. Die vryheid van gebed is die vryheid om te antwoord in ooreenstemming met die Woord van God, waardeur die mens aangespreek word en in beslag geneem word. Dit is die bevryding van alle ander stemme en aansprake, en die vryheid om te getuig van die een en enigste stem wat die lewe in totaliteit in beslag neem. Geloof, gehoorsaamheid en gebed is in ‘n onskeibare verband tot mekaar. Al drie maak deel uit van die een Christelike lewe wat geleef word onder die Heer, wat Heer is oor die hele skepping en ook oor die Christelike lewe. In geloof, gehoorsaamheid en gebed leef die Christen in ooreenstemming met God se heerskappy oor die wêreld, die kerk en die individu. Om ‘n Christen te word, beteken om te glo. Dit beteken om voortdurend weg te kyk van sigself, na Jesus Christus, wat die mensdom regverdig ten spyte van hul ongeloof, ten spyte van hul trots, ten spyte van hul geloof in hulself. Geloof vertrou nie op sigself nie, maar vertrou Jesus Christus volledig. Om ‘n Christen te wees, beteken om Jesus Christus te gehoorsaam. Dit beteken om sigself oor te gee aan Jesus Christus as die enigste Heer wat gehoorsaam moet word in lewe en in sterwe. Jesus Christus heilig die ongehoorsame en trae mensdom, wat aan die mens die vryheid gee om op te staan en Jesus te volg in gehoorsaamheid. Om op te tree as ‘n Christen, beteken om te bid saam met Jesus Christus. Dit beteken om in die Naam van Jesus Christus, in die krag en teenwoordigheid van Jesus Christus, in die genade en heerskappy van Jesus Christus, te vra dat ons in staat sal wees om te glo wat ons nie self kan glo nie, en dat ons in staat sal wees om te gehoorsaam wat ons nie self kan gehoorsaam nie.

Thesis (MTh)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Is the demonic personal or impersonal? The question is rarely treated in depth. This thesis initially delves into the demonological offerings of a pair of twentieth century theologians, Karl Barth and Merrill Unger, in order to discern their particular positions upon the subject. Personhood itself is a divisive issue between the two theologians. Barth’s perspective on personhood is not intrinsically linked to the physical nature. Persons are who they are because of their relationship with the divine. In reference to the demonic, Unger briefly assesses personhood by inseparably correlating it with ontological reality. Their disagreement continues into the definition of “demon.” Barth prefers to see the demonic as uncreated yet derived from God as a byproduct of His creative decree, and Unger opts for a famous classical construction that they are created beings who rebelled against their Maker. Yet, Barth and Unger are both found to not only adhere to personal language concerning the demonic but also to posit demons as personal beings. According to Barth and Unger, demons are real, personal, and malevolent. This unusual unity, even with their distinct theological backgrounds, can only be properly understood as the result of their mutual profession to reflect the biblical material. Considering the dated nature of Barth and Unger’s writings, recent biblical scholarship is examined in order to determine whether or not their attestation of a demonic personhood is borne out by current studies. While a few exceptions are noted, the majority of scholars indicate that the biblical material portrays personal intermediary players besides God and humanity, with the category of “demon” becoming progressively prevalent as one chronologically journeys through the divine revelation. Spurning a Bultmann-inspired demythologization, Barth and Unger simply attempt to reflect the biblical material. But how does Barth and Unger’s idea of demonic personhood hold up in light of the multicultural context? As the globe hurriedly shrinks during our technologically connected age, the boundaries between cultures have fallen, resulting in numerous contexts which contain two or more cultures sharing the same space. How can Christianity navigate such turbulent times, except by emphasizing the centrality of the God’s Word! It coheres God’s people, while convicting and transforming every contacted culture. In the multicultural context, specifically through the Western and African worldviews, Barth and Unger’s personhood of the demonic speaks admonition and affirmation to the Christian masses. Unhealthy superstition is challenged,and dismissive skepticism is chastised. Caution is upheld, and the openness of the African worldview is vindicated. Thus, in light of the multicultural context, a biblical personhood of the demonic realm is plausible, and as a revelation-centric position, it surpasses current ethnocentric expressions of the topic. As we turned toward constructing some conclusions, Barth and Unger’s strengths and weaknesses were assessed. Karl Barth claims that conveying the biblical testimony is his first concern, but on the subject of the demonic, he entertains a confusing philosophy which unpredictably maintains personhood. Merrill Unger paints with broad brush strokes, failing to discuss or respond to the progressive way in which the demonic is unveiled throughout the biblical text. One of the strengths of Barth’s demonological presentation, which includes demonic personhood, is that he highlights the activity of the demonic before the ontology of the demonic. Though interacting with scholars and theologians, Unger’s clear emphasis and strength is on recapitulating the biblical text, linking nearly every point to numerous texts. Finally, if we accept the reality of a personal demonic, our response to the demonic should reflect it. Theologically, it should spur us onward toward a truly personal view of redemption. Practically, it means that we should critically analyze and carefully consider the constructive works of counselors, pastors, and deliverance practitioners that we may cautiously adapt our ecclesiological practices to reflect biblical realities. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Is die demoniese persoonlik of onpersoonlik? Die vraag word selde in diepte behandel. Hierdie tesis beskou aanvanklik die demonologiese aanbiedinge van twee twintigste-eeuse teoloë, Karl Barth en Merril Unger, om hulle spesifieke standpunte oor die onderwerp te onderskei. Persoonskap self is 'n verdelende kwessie tussen die twee teoloë. Barth se perspektief op persoonskap is nie intrinsiek aan hulle fisiese aard gekoppel nie. Persone is wie hulle is weens hul verhouding met die goddelike. Met verwysing na die demoniese evalueer Unger kortliks persoonskap deur dit onlosmaaklik met die ontologiese werklikheid te korreleer. Hul meningsverskil strek tot in hul definisie van die "demoon". Barth verkies om die demoniese as ongeskape, tog afgelei van God as 'n byproduk van Sy skeppingsverordening te sien, en Unger verkies 'n bekende klassieke voorstel dat hulle geskape wesens is wat in opstand gekom het teen hulle Maker. Tog word daar gevind dat Barth en Unger beide nie persoonlike taal betreffende die demoniese aanhang nie, maar demone ook as persoonlike wesens poneer. Volgens Barth en Unger is demone werklik, persoonlik en kwaadwillig. Hierdie ongewone eensgesindheid, selfs met hul verskillende teologiese agtergronde, kan slegs behoorlik verstaan word as die gevolg van hul gedeelde aanspraak dat hulle die Bybelse stof weerspieël. Die verouderde aard van Barth en Unger se geskrifte in ag geneem, word onlangse Bybelwetenskap ondersoek om te bepaal of hulle bevestiging van 'n demoniese persoonskap deur huidige studies beaam word. Hoewel 'n paar uitsonderings waargeneem word, dui die meerderheid geleerdes daarop dat die Bybelse stof persoonlike tussengangers buiten God en die mensdom uitbeeld, met die kategorie van die "demoon" wat toenemend voorkom soos wat 'n mens chronologies deur die goddelike openbaring reis. In veragting van 'n Bultmann-geïnspireerde ontmitologisering probeer Barth en Unger eenvoudig die Bybelse stof weerspieël. Maar hoe hou Barth en Unger se idee van demoniese persoonskap stand in die lig van die multikulturele konteks? Soos die wêreld haastig krimp tydens ons tegnologies-verbinde tydperk, het die grense tussen kulture verval, wat gelei het tot verskeie kontekste waarin twee of meer kulture dieselfde ruimte deel. Hoe kan die Christendom sulke onstuimige tye navigeer, behalwe deur die sentraliteit van Gods Woord te benadruk! Dit verenig God se volk, onderwyl dit elke kultuur waarmee ons in verbinding tree oortuig en transformeer. In die multikulturele konteks, veral deur die Westerse en Afrika se wêreldbeelde, spreek Barth en Unger se persoonlikheid van die demoniese van vermaning en bekragtiging aan die Christenmassas. Ongesonde bygeloof word uitgedaag, en afwysende skeptisisme word gekasty. Omsigtigheid word gehandhaaf, en die oopheid van Afrika se wêreldbeskouing word geregverdig. Dus, in die lig van die multikulturele konteks, is 'n Bybelse persoonskap van 'n persoonlike demoniese realm geloofwaardig, en as openbaringsgesentreerde standpunt oortref dit huidige etnosentriese uitdrukkings van die onderwerp. Soos wat ons 'n paar gevolgtrekkings begin maak het, is Barth en Unger se sterk- en swakpunte geassesseer. Karl Barth beweer dat die oordra van die Bybelse getuienis sy eerste belang is, maar betreffende die onderwerp van die demoniese koester hy 'n verwarrende filosofie wat onvoorspelbaar persoonskap handhaaf. Merrill Unger verf met breë kwashale, en versuim om die progressiewe wyse waarop die demoniese dwarsdeur die Bybelse teks ontsluier word te bespreek of daarop te reageer. Een van die sterk punte van Barth se demonologiese voorstelling, wat demoniese persoonskap insluit, is dat hy die aktiwiteit van die demoniese bó die ontologie beklemtoon. Hoewel hy in gesprek is met geleerdes en teoloë, lê Unger se duidelike klem en krag in sy samevatting van die Bybelse teks, met die koppeling van byna elke punt aan talle tekste. Laastens, as ons die werklikheid van 'n persoonlike demoniese aanvaar, moet ons reaksie daarop dit weerspieël. Teologies moet dit ons aanspoor om verder in die rigting van 'n waarlik persoonlike siening van verlossing. Prakties beteken dit dat ons die konstruktiewe werke van verlossingspraktisyns, pastore, en raadgewers krities moet ontleed en versigtig moet oorweeg sodat ons versigtig ons ekklesiologiese praktyke kan aanpas om Bybelse werklikhede te weerspieël.