Karl Barth: Perbedaan antara revisi
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
Baris 15:
Pada dekade setelah Perang Dunia I, Barth terkait dengan sejumlah teolog lainnya, yang sesungguhnya sangat berbeda-beda pandangannya, yang bereaksi terhadap liberalisme guru-gurunya, dalam sebuah gerakan yang dikenal sebagai "[[Teologi Dialektis]]" (bahasa Jerman: ''Dialektische Theologie''). Para anggota lain dari gerakan ini termasuk [[Rudolf Bultmann]], [[Eduard Thurneysen]], [[Emil Brunner]], dan [[Friedrich Gogarten]].
== Dogmatika Gereja ==
Teologi Barth menemukan ungkapannya yang paling kuat dan meyakinkan melalui ''magnum opus''nya (karya besar) yang terdiri dari 13 jilid, yaitu [[Dogmatika Gereja]] (bahasa Jerman: "Die Kirchliche Dogmatik").
Rangkaian tulisan ini dianggap sebagai salah satu karya teologis yang terpenting dari segala zaman. "Dogmatika Gereja" merupakan puncak dari keberhasilan Barth sebagai seorang teolog. Barth mulai menulis Dogmatika itu pada 1932, dan terus mengerjakannya hingga ajalnya pada 1968, ketika panjangnya sudah mencapai 6 juta kata. Karya yang sangat kontekstual ini ditulis secara kronologis, dimulai dengan Vol. I.1, dan membahas masalah-masalah politik serta pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang diajukan oleh mahasiswa-mahasiswanya setelah kuliah. Barth menjelajahi seluruh [[doktrin]] Kristen, dan apabila perlu menantang dan menafsirkannya kembali sehingga setiap bagian daripadanya menunjuk kepada tantangan yang radikal dari Yesus Kristus, dan ketidakmungkinan untuk mempertautkan Allah dengan budaya, keberhasilan, atau harta kekayaan manusia. Buku ini diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Inggris oleh [[T. F. Torrance]] dan [[G. W. Bromiley]].
<!--==Later life==
After the end of the [[Second World War]], Barth became an important voice in support both of German penitence and of reconciliation with churches abroad. Together with [[Hans-Joachim Iwand]], he authored the [[Darmstadt Statement]] in 1947, which was a more concrete statement of German guilt and responsibility for the Third Reich and Second World War than the [[Stuttgart Declaration]] of 1945. In it, he made the point that the Church's willingness to side with anti-socialist and conservative forces had led to its susceptibility for National Socialist ideology. In the context of the developing [[Cold War]], this controversial statement was rejected by anti-Communists in the West, who supported the [[CDU]] course of re-militarization, as well as by East German dissidents who believed that it did not sufficiently depict the dangers of [[Communism]]. In the 1950s, Barth sympathized with the [[peace movement]] and opposed German rearmament.
Baris 36 ⟶ 37:
The relationship between Barth, liberalism and fundamentalism goes far beyond the issue of inerrancy. From Barth's perspective, liberalism (with [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]] and [[Hegel]] as its leading exponents) is the divinization of human thinking. Some philosophical concepts become the false God, and the voice of the living God is blocked. This leads to the captivity of theology by human ideology. In Barth's theology, he emphasizes again and again that human concepts can never be considered as identical to God's revelation. In this aspect, Scripture is also written human language, expressing human concepts. It cannot be considered as identical as God's revelation. However, in His freedom and love, God truly reveals the Godself through human language and concepts. Thus he claims that Christ is truly presented in Scripture and the preaching of the church. Barth stands in the heritage of the Reformation in his wariness of the marriage between theology and philosophy. Whether his sharp distinction between human concepts and divine revelation is biblical or philosophically sound remains debatable.
==
"[[
"Teologi yang terbaik tidak membutuhkan pembelanya: ia akan membuktikan dirinya sendiri."
“There is a notion that complete impartiality is the most fitting and indeed the normal disposition for true exegesis, because it guarantees complete absence of prejudice. For a short time, around 1910, this idea threatened to achieve almost a canonical status in Protestant theology. But now, we can quite calmly describe it as merely comical. ” (Church Dogmatics 1:2, 469)
| |||