Paul Thomson Nimmo

The orders of creation in the theological ethics of Karl Barth

It is widely known that early on in his teaching career Karl Barth advanced a concept of the ‘orders of creation’, but that he retracted that concept in his later work in reaction to the tragic use that had been made of it by the National Socialist movement in Germany. However, two aspects of this movement remain relatively unexplored: first, the underlying material continuity between Barths early ethics and his later ethics that this movement occludes; and second, the significant methodological shift in Barths theology which this movement attests. This article explores both these aspects of Barths theological development through his treatment of the ‘orders of creation’.

The Mediation of Redemption in Schleiermacher's Glaubenslehre

:  In §24 of the Glaubenslehre, Friedrich Schleiermacher conceives of a ‘provisional antithesis’ between Protestantism – which ‘makes the individuals relation to the Church dependent on his relation to Christ’– and Catholicism – which ‘makes the individuals relation to Christ dependent on his relation to the Church’. This antithesis has been criticized for defining a Protestantism that is inconsistent with the (Protestant) theology of redemption presented elsewhere in the Glaubenslehre. This article seeks to refute this criticism, arguing that while Schleiermacher acknowledges the roles of both Christ and the church in redemption, he ultimately gives theological priority to the former.

Schleiermacher on Justification: A Departure From the Reformation?

In his 1923–4 lectures on the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth offered a strikingly negative verdict on Schleiermachers doctrine of justification, lamenting that it was radically discontinuous with the theology of the Reformation. The core purpose of this article is to assess this verdict in detail. The introduction presents in outline Barths criticism of Schleiermachers doctrine of justification from these lectures. The first section of the article provides a summary of the doctrine of justification as it is found in Schleiermachers mature work, The Christian Faith , together with a brief consideration of the related doctrines of conversion and sanctification, and an exposition of the dogmatic location and inter-relation of the three loci. In the second section, the article proceeds to investigate closely whether three of the central criticisms of Barth pertaining to Schleiermachers doctrine of justification reflect an accurate reading and adjudication of the underlying material. The criticisms explored are: that for Schleiermacher there is no justification as a free act of God but only a justification which takes place according to the law of nature; that in the event of justification Schleiermacher considers both God and the human being to be active; and that the doctrine of Schleiermacher repeats the heresy of essential righteousness after the fashion of Andreas Osiander. The common theme underlying each charge is that Schleiermacher has departed significantly (and lamentably) from the tradition of the Reformation. The third section of the article proceeds to explore these charges carefully in light of a close reading of Schleiermachers dogmatic work on justification and related doctrines. In the case of each of the criticisms directed at his doctrine of justification, it is argued that there are strong grounds for asserting that Barths concerns may be rather misplaced and that – true to his word – Schleiermacher indeed remains in broad dogmatic continuity with the Reformation tradition. In the conclusion, two further theological possibilities are noted. First, it is suggested that, far from leaving the Reformation tradition behind, Schleiermachers work on justification resonates strongly with one particular reading of Calvins work which has much currency in contemporary theology. And second, it is suggested that, far from Schleiermacher being the one to depart from the Reformation tradition on justification, it might actually – ironically – be Barth who is more guilty of that charge in view of his own doctrine of justification in the Church Dogmatics .