Abstract
While it is generally agreed that the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature have a place in Karl Barth’s Christology, there is little agreement over Barth’s interpretative construal of these concepts, particularly in relation to historical Protestant Orthodoxy. In this article I argue that Karl Barth adopts both anhypostasis and enhypostasis as a dual formula to explain how the human nature of Christ exists in union with the Logos. In this way Barth moves beyond Protestant orthodox tradition wherein the patristic Fathers, Lutheran and Reformed Scholastics, and the post-Scholastic dogmatics of Heinrich Schmid (Lutheran) and Heinrich Heppe (Reformed) consistently interpret anhypostasis and enhypostasis as autonomous concepts to explain how the human nature of Christ exists in union with the Logos. What Protestant orthodoxy understood as mutually exclusive concepts to explain the human nature of Christ, Karl Barth uniquely adopts as an ontological formula to explain how the human nature of Christ exists in union with the Logos.
Highlights
For Karl Barth, anhypostasis and enhypostasis was historically validated as a legitimate theological expression of Christ’s human nature. is is important because Barth cites this formula as authoritative support for his own ontology of the God-man
In this article I argue that Karl Barth adopts both anhypostasis and enhypostasis as a dual formula to explain how the human nature of Christ exists in union with the Logos
In this way Barth moves beyond Protestant orthodox tradition wherein the patristic Fathers, Lutheran and Reformed Scholastics, and the postScholastic dogmatics of Heinrich Schmid (Lutheran) and Heinrich Heppe (Reformed) consistently interpret anhypostasis and enhypostasis as autonomous concepts to explain how the human nature of Christ exists in union with the Logos
Summary
For Karl Barth, anhypostasis and enhypostasis was historically validated as a legitimate theological expression of Christ’s human nature. is is important because Barth cites this formula as authoritative support for his own ontology of the God-man. Matthias Gockel argues against Shults that the protestant scholasticism that Barth worked through to develop his own understanding of this teaching was very much in line with orthodox tradition, and Barth’s adoption of anhypostasis and enhypostasis as a formula is an innovation all his own.. I argue against Shults that Barth’s interpretation of anhypostasis and enhypostasis di ers with the patristic Church Fathers, but with the scholastics and post-scholastics as well; all of which interpreted anhypostasis and enhypostasis as autonomous concepts to describe the human nature of Christ. I argue that Barth appropriates the anhypostasis and enhypostasis formulation to explain how the humanity of Christ is brought into union with the Logos as the revelation of God in the esh, in His act of reconciliation with humanity. Barth’s appropriation of anhypostasis and enhypostasis becomes foundational to his Christology in working out how the Word of God became esh as the mediator and reconciler between God and humanity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
