no fall put to the test

last night at bible study we did the final in our series based on Tim Keller's "The Reason For God". we looked at Sin, through the lens of Genesis 3:1-13, Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:21-26.

as you would know, i've just finished an essay on the consequences of denying an historical fall (here, here, and here). the position i finished at was that the idea of "the fall" is not what Genesis 3, nor the rest of the testimony of the bible, is trying to get across.

rather, as Karl Barth agreed with me, "the first man was immediately the first sinner." (CD IV.1 §508)


so as we discussed the idea of the fall, we didn't use the terminology of "fall", but analysed what the story said. and it said that sin consists of disobedience, selfishness, disrespect, but primarily trusting Satan's lies. we agreed that none of us would have been different, and that this grasping against God is something we all continue.

i can perhaps post some of the best bits of my essay a little later, but i just thought it would be helpful to show where this thinking has ended me up (if that sentence makes sense!).

Historical Fall in the key of B

so far i've narrowed my doctrine essay down to the following points:

• Babes or bound (the historical debate - Pelagius vs Augustine)
  
  
• Blocher or Barth (the current debate)
  
  
• (Bavinck and Bloesch - minnows, relatively, yet helpfully starting with a B)
  
  
• Bible (Romans 5 and Genesis 3)

and finally, inevitably, painfully:

• Bibliography

i'll probably talk about Ricoeur also, but i may have to deliberately rename him Bicoeur for the purposes of this essay.

check here and also here for the background.

don't know why all this matters? this is why.

i believe in God

a common statement indeed.
the question the christian asks is then: which god? or perhaps: what do you mean you believe in god - are you a christian?

Karl Barth in Dogmatik im Grundriß says that when Christians say: i believe in (on) God, they mean to say i believe in (on) the Lord Jesus Christ.*

firstly, i wonder how this might work apologetically. imagine a conversation with a non-Christian:
NC: yeah i believe in God
you: oh right, so you believe in Jesus?
NC: um i dunno about Jesus, i mean i believe he existed and stuff...
you: i guess my point is that to say you believe in God is to say that you believe that God reveals himself, that he doesn't want to remain a mystery, but wants to be known, and that God has made himself known is in the man Jesus, who incidentally, said that he was the only way to know the Father, that is, God.


i guess where you go then is to say that for someone to believe in an abstract idea of 'God' is simply that: abstract. but the way Barth so simply puts it makes it 'konkret', a statement of fact that must be engaged with.

worth a try, anyway!

*Und wenn wir sagen, ich glaube an Gott, so heisst das konkret: ich glaube an den Herrn Jesus Christus. the german isn't in (in) but an (on). it makes logical sense but not grammatical. hence my brackets.

Dogmatik im Grundriß I

finally started reading this after buying it way back when (see here).

despite a semester of Biblical Theology at bible skool, with a focus on how this is different to other 'theologies', i think it's only now in reading these 1947 lectures by Karl Barth that i've read a clear explanation of where Exegesis (which includes Biblical Theology), Dogma (Systematic Theology) and Practical Theology fit together.

Es gibt in der Theologie die Frage nach der Quelle, nach dem Woher des Wortes, und die Antwort auf diese erste Frage wird immer wieder zu geben sein in jener Disziplin, die wir Exegese nennen.

Auf der andere Seite aber erhebt sich auch die Frage nach dem Wie, nach der Form und Gestalt der Verkündigung, die der Kirche aufgetragen ist, und dort befinden wir uns auf dem Felde dessen, was man die praktische Theologie nennt.

Genau in der Mitte zwischen Exegese und praktischer Theolgie steht die Dogmatik oder umfassender ausgedrückt: die systematischer Theologie. In der Dogmatik fragen wir nicht: Woher stammt - und nicht: Wie gestaltet sich die kirchliche Verkündigung, sondern in der Dogmatik fragen wir: Was haben wir zu denken und zu sagen? [...] im Blick darauf, dass wir nicht nur theoretisch etwas zu sagen haben, sondern etwas in die Welt hinein rufen sollen.

so basically, in Exegesis we have the source (die Quelle), on the other side, asking 'how?', we have practical theology. and in the middle, coming out of the one, and informing the other, we then have Dogma, or ST, which is we have to think and to say. and it is not just in theory, but rather, Dogma is rather something we can cry out into the world.

i don't think i was ever encouraged to think of ST in this way. but ST, for example in creeds (see here for a fun discussion on creeds!), as Barth works through in the rest of this book, is what we believe, it is thus what we should speak to the world. not so much a how, but perhaps a what. this is i guess why creeds are so controversial (see aforementioned blog to see this played out), as simply stating what it is you believe, what you think, can be really confronting.

especially in a world of relativism and post-modernity, it is particularly important to wtate that we do believe something, something in particular, something to the exception of all else.

quotations from Karl Barth, Dogmatik im Grundriß, Theologischer Verlag Zürich: 1947 (2006 reprint), p12-13.

Römerbrief

meine bücher sind angekommen!
my interest in Barth in particular was reignited after reading this really well thought through article by Ben Myers

considering it's 85yrs old, i thought it would be impossibly hard to read, but the German is refreshingly easy going. so it'll just be really really hard.

any comments or tips about Barth's hermeneutical paradigm would be appreciated