Karl Barth’s interpretative construal of the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature in relation to historical Protestant Orthodoxy
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 arg...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Stellenbosch University
[2017]
|
| In: |
Stellenbosch theological journal
Year: 2017, Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 139-157 |
| IxTheo Classification: | KAJ Church history 1914-; recent history KDD Protestant Church NBF Christology |
| Further subjects: | B
Christ’s human nature
B enhypostasis B Anhypostasis B Chalcedon B egeneto |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2413-9467 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Stellenbosch theological journal
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.17570/stj.2017.v3n1.a07 |