Thesis (doctoral--Inaug. diss.)--Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen, 1984. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 385-408).

Thesis (M.A.)--Wheaton College, 2006. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 214-219).

Thesis (B.A.)--Wheaton College, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

Zugl.: Bonn, Universiẗat, Diss., 2007.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Emory University, 1983. / Bibliography: p. 227-239.

This dissertation comprises three parts, setting forth the thesis that Karl Barth’s mature doctrine of election, though avowedly supralapsarian, is in fact basically the opposite. I trace the development of Barth’s lapsarian thinking from its inception in 1920 (Romans II) to its maturation in 1936-42 (Gottes Gnadenwahl to CD II/2), and further developments up to 1953 (CD IV/1). The thesis of my dissertation comprises two aspects, one concerning what lapsarian position, Christological and predestinarian, underlies the Christocentric doctrine of election Barth developed in 1936-42, and the other concerning how he came to develop this lapsarian view. Part I examines the lapsarian position of Barth’s mature doctrine of election set forth in CD II/2 against the background of the Lapsarian Controversy in seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy, arguing that he has misunderstood some seventeenth-century terms and that his position is in fact basically in line with infralapsarianism in that for him both election and the incarnation presuppose humankind’s fallenness. Part II traces the development of Barth’s lapsarian position from its inception in 1920 to its Christological reorientation in 1936-42. In a nutshell, my thesis in Part II is that Christology and predestination started out as two loosely related doctrines in Barth’s theology, but as predestination, which was inconsistently supralapsarian during the first phase of the development, was drawn closer to Christology, which carried infralapsarian tendencies at first and became infralapsarian in the 1920s, Barth’s doctrine of predestination became more and more infralapsarian, and then in 1936-42 the two doctrines merged and became inseparable, and he became basically infralapsarian in both Christology and predestination. Part III comprises two chapters exploring doctrinal implications and further developments of Barth’s Christological-predestinarian infralapsarianism up to 1953 (CD IV/1). I argue that in developing what I suggest we call his “purified infralapsarianism” in a deeply historical-actualistic direction, the basically infralapsarian character of Barth’s understanding of election in Christ becomes more radical in that he leaves no room for the possibility of homo nondum lapsus as the obiectum praedestinationis.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2015. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation is a critical analysis of the significance that the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature play in Karl Barth’s Christology. It does so in five parts. First, this dissertation examines the historical orthodox understanding of the concepts anhypostasis and enhypostasis to explain the human nature of Christ, and defend the Chalcedon definition of the two natures in the patristic, scholastic, and post-scholastic periods. Historically, orthodox writers consistently express anhypostasis and enhypostasis as autonomous concepts, where enhypostasis refers to the reality of Christ’s human nature in union with the Logos, and anhypostasis expresses Christ’s human nature as having no subsistent reality outside its union with the Logos. Karl Barth appropriates anhypostasis and enhypostasis as a dual formula to express the humanity of Christ, which moves beyond historical orthodoxy and is unique to his Christology. Second, this dissertation evaluates Karl Barth’s unique interpretation of the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature as a dual and congruent formula to express how the humanity of Christ exists in union with His divine essence. Third, this dissertation follows the historical development of anhypostasis and enhypostasis in Karl Barth’s Christology and its ontological function in Barth’s development of the revelation of Jesus Christ as the ‘Word became flesh’. In his break with liberal theology Karl Barth emphasizes that the revelation of God is made manifest exclusively in the person of Jesus Christ, which is ontologically grounded in the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. Fourth, this dissertation identifies the themes of coalescence between the divine and human natures of Christ where Barth expresses Christ’s human nature as anhypostasis and enhypostasis in His role as the mediator of reconciliation between God and humanity. Fifth, this dissertation evaluates Barth’s critique of Chalcedon’s definition of the two natures expressed through the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. While Barth does not disagree with Chalcedon, he desires to express more precisely the union of divine and human natures in Christ as the act of God’s revelation, as the Son of Man, in His exaltation. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie verhandeling is 'n kritiese analise van die belangrike rol wat die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur in Karl Barth se Christologie speel. Die studie bestaan uit vyf gedeeltes. Eerstens ondersoek hierdie verhandeling die historiese ortodokse verstaan van die konsepte anhypostasis en enhypostasis om die menslike natuur van Christus te verduidelik, en die Chalsedoniese definisie van die twee nature in die patristieke, skolastiese en postskolastiese periodes te verdedig. Histories gebruik ortodokse skrywers anhypostasis en enhypostasis deurgaans as outonome konsepte, met enhypostasis wat verwys na die realiteit van Christus se menslike natuur in gemeenskap met die Logos, en anhypostasis wat verwys na die wyse waarop Christus se menslike natuur geen bestaansrealiteit los van hierdie gemeenskap het nie. Karl Barth gebruik beide anhypostasis en enhypostasis as 'n tweeledige formule om uitdrukking aan die menslike natuur van Christus te gee en gaan hiermee verder as die historiese ortodoksie posisie, wat 'n unieke eienskap van sy Christologie is. Tweedens evalueer hierdie verhandeling Karl Barth se unieke interpretasie van die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur as 'n tweeledige en kongruente formule om te verduidelik hoe die menslikheid van Christus in samehang met Sy goddelike wese bestaan. Derdens volg hierdie verhandeling die historiese ontwikkeling van anhypostasis en enhypostasis in Karl Barth se Christologie en die ontologiese funksie wat dit in Barth se ontwikkeling van die openbaring van Jesus Christus as die ‘Woord wat Vlees geword het’ verrig. In sy breek met liberale teologie beklemtoon Karl Barth dat die openbaring van God uitsluitlik in die persoon van Christus voorkom, en dat hierdie openbaring ontologies in die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur gegrond is. Vierdens, identifiseer hierdie verhandeling die temas van vereniging tussen die goddelike en menslike nature van Christus, waar Barth Christus se menslike natuur as anhypostasis en enhypostasis in Sy rol as bemiddelaar van versoening tussen God en mens beskryf. Vyfdens evalueer hierdie verhandeling Barth se kritiek op die Chalsedoniese definisie van die twee nature, wat uit sy verstaan van die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur voortspruit. Terwyl Barth wel Chalcedon aanvaar, wil hy graag op meer presiese wyse die eenheid van goddelike en menslike nature in Christus, as die handeling van God se openbaring as die Seun van die Mens in Sy verheerliking, beskryf.

My study centres on Karl Barth’s pneumatology with special attention to its inseparable relationship with his vision of the Christian life. Many critics say that Barth’s emphasis upon the gracious God revealed in Christ improperly undermined both the role of the Spirit and the importance of human agency. In contrast, my research will demonstrate that it is possible to read Barth as offering a robust Spirit theology, which resulted in rich reflection upon the Christian life. More specifically, my thesis will first examine Barth’s pneumatology within the context of his incomplete doctrine of redemption. I will show that his unique understanding of redemption was largely shaped by his exegesis of Paul’s Spirit theology, in which he developed central pneumatological motifs, including the Spirit’s incorporation of humanity into the intra-divine fellowship, mediation in the form of pneumatic prayer, and the shaping of moral agency. I will, then, examine these redemptive works of the Spirit within a more comprehensive context of his theology, coordinating synchronic and diachronic approaches. In particular, I will read ‘through’ and ‘across’ Barth, tracing underpinning pneumatological themes, with special focus on the three modes of the Spirit’s work in the opera ad extra – the mediation of divine and human logic in revelation, the drawing of creation into God’s self-glorification movement through beauty, and the calling of individuals through community into God’s drama of salvation. In short, unlike criticisms that Barth reduced pneumatology to the subjective possibility of revelation, my study will show that his pneumatology is mainly about our prayerful participation in God, the constitution of human agency and a new vision of the Christian life under the direction of the Spirit.

This thesis examines and critiques the doctrine of baptism in the theology of Thomas Torrance and utilises aspects of Torrance’s doctrine to recover and enrich the meaning of baptism in Westminster theology. Torrance’s doctrine of baptism has suffered from misunderstanding and has been widely neglected. This arises from Torrance introducing a new soteriological paradigm, that is claimed by Torrance, to be both new, and at the same time to be a recovery of the work of the early church fathers and Calvin. It is the contention of this thesis that Torrance’s soteriological paradigm is more ‘new’ than it is a recovery of either the early church fathers or Calvin. Torrance’s new paradigm is not easily identified as ‘new’ because of Torrance’s creative use of Irenaeus, Athanasius and Calvin. His theology is further misunderstood by many because it is partly seen to derive from his criticism of a caricature of Westminster theology. The purpose here is to provide an exposition of Torrance’s doctrine of baptism, identifying union with Christ and Christ’s vicarious humanity as key doctrines that inform his theology of baptism. Torrance has a distinct and unique soteriological paradigm based on an ontological healing in the incarnation. He refers to this as a ‘dimension in depth’ where the atonement takes place from the virgin birth through to the ascension, where the work of Christ is the person of Christ. It will be argued that Torrance exaggerates the degree to which his views may be found in the early church fathers and in Calvin. It is also suggested that many of his criticisms of Westminster theology have some basis, but that his detailed arguments diminishes his more valid general criticisms. The thesis identifies Torrance’s distinct voice from the early church fathers and Calvin and attempts to dismiss Torrance’s caricature of Westminster theology, so that Torrance’s distinct soteriology can be recognised, his genuine criticisms of Westminster theology considered, and the contribution that he has made on baptism be recovered. The doctrine of baptism that emerges from incorporating many of Torrance’s insights is a reformed covenantal doctrine of baptism that stresses the importance of ontological union for covenantal solidarity, but will reject Torrance’s redemptive understanding of ontological healing. Torrance centres the meaning of baptism in Christ and Christ’s one vicarious baptism for the church, and serves to identify how the church has lost its focus on what lies at the centre of baptism. However Torrance’s doctrine of baptism that argues for the theological primacy of infant baptism lost the debate in the Church of Scotland, which now places a greater emphasis on adult baptism. It is suggested that the reasons for this failure is that Torrance’s doctrine of baptism was developed outside of the framework of covenant theology, and that his doctrine of soteriology on which his doctrine of baptism was based left little room for the human response. The thesis concludes that Torrance’s doctrine of baptism can serve as a model for the recovery of the meaning of baptism. While the central thrust of Torrance’s redemptive ontological union with Christ is rejected, Torrance’s emphasis on union with Christ, the incarnation, the person and work of Christ, and Christ’s vicarious baptism can be incorporated into the reformed doctrine of baptism to recover its meaning.