Work Of Reconciliation Research Articles

Karl Barth on Baptism

Some years ago Barth fell seriously ill, and no one, least of all he himself, dared hope that he would ever again be capable of adding another volume to the twelve volumes of his opus magnum, the Church Dogmatics, which had appeared from 1932 till 1962. After his remarkable recovery in autumn 1965, however, he has paid a visit to Rome in September 1966, the fruit of which was his highly instructive report Ad Limina Apostolorum (reviewed in SJT, vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 110f), and now he has presented us with another volume of his Church Dogmatics, though, for the reasons given in the Preface to K.D. IV.4, the latter had to be confined to a fraction of what Barth had originally hoped to achieve in that volume. To understand what follows, we must call to mind that Barth, treating ethics as an integral part of dogmatics, had dealt in his doctrine of God (C.D. II.2) with the command of God as an essential element in the very Being of God (general ethics). In his doctrine of creation (C.D. III.4) he had discussed the command (special ethics) of God the Creator. In his teaching on reconciliation he had so far expounded (C.D. IV. 1–3) the three aspects of Jesus Christ's work of reconciliation, namely His priestly work as the Lord (Son of God) who became a servant to accomplish the work of reconciliation, His kingly work as the servant (Son of Man) who became Lord and by His exaltation exalted man to fellowship with God, and His prophetic work as the Godman who as the Mediator of man's reconciliation with God is the Guarantor and Witness of that reconciliation.

Science and Philosophy

THE leading article under this title in NATURE of June 7 is interesting not only in its exposition of the subject but also in marking a phase in the history of thought. Throughout what is for the circumstances a fairly full discussion there is only one reference to biology, and this in the form of a hint that the fundamental ideas of that branch of science are in especial need of critical examination. It is highly probable that in no such article written at the beginning of this century could the explicit reference to biology have been so slight both in substance and in tone. The occasion indeed brings into sharp prominence the extent to which the biological sciences have, during the last thirty years, lost prestige in the intellectual world, and ceased to influence philosophic thought. It is well that this fact, whether it ought to give rise to satisfaction or regret, should be clearly recognised. Nevertheless, however complete may be its intellectual insignificance to-day, the fact remains that in any attempted rapprochement between science and philosophy biology is still very much to be reckoned with, and not the less because during the late comparatively silent years it has been steadily adding to its store of knowledge, and especially in those of its branches that are specially relevant to the proposed work of reconciliation.