Reviews for Church Dogmatics the Doctrine of Reconciliation, Volume 4, Part 4: The Foundation of Christian Life

The average rating for Church Dogmatics the Doctrine of Reconciliation, Volume 4, Part 4: The Foundation of Christian Life based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-02-26 00:00:00 Geno Orum After 6 months of reading I come to the end of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics. Volume 4.4 stands out as being singularly unique in the series. Not only is it by far the shortest of the series (at just a few pages over 200 it's not even close) but it also, in many ways, isn't even a complete volume. Barth states in the introduction that what exists in 4.4 is really a fragment of what he intended. During the writing his health deteriorated to the point where he was unable to continue and, sadly, he passed shortly after its publication. As such, the numbering system Barth uses throughout the series to denote chapters and sections ends with 4.3.2 and 4.4 exists apart from the rest of the series, seeming to be more of a snippet of what might have been rather than Barth's intended conclusion to the Doctrine of Reconciliation. Although it's unfortunate that Barth never finished the series, the fragmentary nature of 4.4 allows Barth to focus singularly on one topic - baptism. As a result this volume stands out as being among the most accessible and digestible in the series. Barth draws a clear distinction between Baptism of the Holy Spirit and water Baptism, spending the majority of the book discussing the latter. As should be expected by this point in the series, Barth's view on the topic is nuanced and complex. I was especially intrigued by this topic due to the fact that my own views of baptism have changed quite drastically over the last year and a half. At a high (and overly simplistic level) Barth's view of baptism can be summarized as follows: 1. Baptism ought to be considered an ordinance rather than a sacrament. It is not a means of grace 2. It follows from this that baptism is a human action and not a divine one. Barth rejects any sense of mystery or inexplicablity in the action of baptism. 3. However, that does not make baptism optional. It is divinely commanded and therefore a requirement for all Christians. 4. Baptism is ecclesiological in nature, signifying the believer's entrance into the community. 5. Baptism, being an act of obedience, ought to be a free choice, thus invalidating infant baptism, which Barth characterizes as an ancient ecclesiological error. With this position, Barth is obviously breaking quite sharply with his own tradition and the majority of church history. Some of the most fascinating parts in his discussion are when he demonstrates the inconsistencies present in the Reformers' views on baptism, particularly infant baptism. The reason this discussion resonated with me on such a personal level is that I too find myself breaking with my tradition on the issue of baptism. The difference is that my split has come in the opposite direction from Barth's. For my entire life I have exclusively attended Baptist and Evangelical churches. Although Barth's view wouldn't line up perfectly with the one found in those circles, on the major points he would largely agree. Baptism is viewed as an ordinance not a sacrament and despite going to church nearly every week for my entire life, I don't believe I've ever witnessed an infant baptism. However, as I mentioned, my own views have now begun to depart quite sharply from my own tradition. I've come to believe that baptism is a sacrament, not an ordinance, and that infant baptism is biblical and ought to be practiced. As such, reading Barth, I felt like I was watching someone develop their theology of baptism in much the same way I have with the only difference is that we are moving in opposite direction. I admired Barth's argument a great deal but I found a few issues in it. 1. Barth is correct to draw a distinction between Baptism of the Holy Spirit and water Baptism but he goes to far in dividing the two. By reducing water Baptism to a merely human aspect, he misses the way that God makes himself present within the human action. I believe that in water Baptism we see the divine working through the human action. Barth is correct that in a technical sense, water Baptism is human action, but incorrect to believe that the divine action is fully absent from that human action. 2. I strongly agree with Barth on the ecclesiological nature of baptism (point 4 in my above summary), which makes his rejection of infant baptism extremely puzzling to me. If baptism's purpose is ecclesiological rather than salvific, then by rejecting infant baptism aren't we denying children the ecclesiological place they deserve? Although there were many factors that played into my own transition on this issue, this point, more than any others, is what changed me from someone who found infant baptism foreign, misguided and unbiblical to someone who sees it as an essential Christian practice. 3. It is also puzzling to me that in his exegetical discussion of the proofs for infant baptism, Barth leaves out 1 Corinthians 10:2. In my estimation this is the most important text for establishing the ecclesiological nature of baptism and seeing the place for children within the act. It is also the closest biblical example to an explicit statement of children being included in the act of baptism. Although Barth does touch on this text at other points in his discussion, he leaves it out of his discussion of infant baptism - a crucial error in his development of the doctrine. Barth's discussion of baptism in this volume is complex, stimulating and, despite my objections, biblically argued. As with everything in this series, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with Barth, his work will challenge and stretch you as you think deeper on the issues he raises and reconsider key biblical texts. This volume contains some of my strongest disagreements with Barth, but I still found it an incredible read and essential study for anyone looking to learn more about baptism. With that, I come to the end of one of the greatest theological works of all time - Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics. Reading it has been a fascinating experience and one that, despite its immense length, I am sure to repeat.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-12-18 00:00:00 Cassie Eb This is Karl Barth's treatment of the ordinance of baptism. Like other volumes in this series, it shares both Barth's strengths and weaknesses. It should be noted that this only a fragment of what appeared to be a larger work-in-progress. Still, it seems to contain the mature essence of Barth's thought. Barth begins on a promising note: he grounds his theology of baptism on the decisive act of Jesus Christ in ushering in the new creation (11). Readers of Oliver O'Donovan will note similar themes. This means that Jesus is the origin and the beginning of the Christian life. There are echoes of eschatology here: Jesus's resurrection discloses, if only briefly, the coming eschaton of the Regeneration (Mt. 19:28). From this we see that Jesus is the True Israelite. In his baptism Jesus takes upon himself, not only the identity of Israel, but also the coming judgment (Barth 56). This, of course, is heavy with themes of mediation (and as long as Barth stays on these topics, he cannot help but triumph). There are classic states that Jesus is the Elected Israelite and Eschatological David (61). As is often the case with Barth, his historical critiques are always insightful. He neatly outlines the Reformed view of baptism: baptism does not cause salvation, but mediates its cognitio and certitudo (105). He then moves to a stunning critique of hyper-sacramentalist traditions. At no point in the New Testament is mysterion used for baptism or the supper. It is an event of God's positive will in space and time (108). This is a place where Calvin can be legitimately criticized: he failed to break with the medieval tradition on the use of sacramentum, something Zwingli was much more successful at doing. More pointedly, he notes that those who say the "water" saves, must account for the following: 1) they must make the dia loutro in Titus 3:5 carry the whole weight of justifying action; 2) they must show that the aim of the Savior's appearing is to illustrate that men are being baptized (LOL!); 3) they must give to the term paliggennesias a meaning quite devoid from Matthew 19:28. So, do we agree with Barth? Sadly, from here on we must part ways. Not surprisingly, given his commitment to crisis-theology and existentialism, Barth champions believer's-only baptism. For him baptism is the decision of decisions, something an infant cannot make. However, Barth is too keen a reader of Calvin to ignore the counters to his position. He then proceeds to critique the doctrine of infant baptism (and here he rehashes the standard baptist critiques. What do we say in response? I grant to him that Calvin's treatment is often less than adequate. Following Oliver O'Donovan I agree that the church is an eschatological society which is joined by leaving other societies. However, adult baptism risks confusing the particular decision to be baptised with the ultimate decision that baptism represents (O'Donovan 178). Infant baptism, by contrast, does not confuse my decision to be baptised with the eschatological decision of following Christ. O'Donovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations.