DOCSLIB.ORG

Lesson Two Why Does God Allow Suffering & Evil?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lesson Two Why Does God Allow Suffering & Evil? Lesson Two Why Does God Allow Suffering & Evil? 12915 Kingston Pike, Knoxville TN 37934 (865) 671-1885 www.christcov.org I. Question #1: “Where Did Evil Come From?” 1) A Skeptic’s Response -- “Evil is part of human nature, it just happened, and is not a historical event.” “Sin is just an aspect of who we are. It is inevitable.” – Karl Barth The evolutionary theory of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak. 2) Questions to Ask Skeptic How can we be guilty for sin if sin is just who we are? How can we be responsible for being what we are, for being what we can’t help being? How can God eliminate sin without eliminating human beings? 3) A Christian’s Response – “Sin came from a historical event, through human choices to disobey God.” God made everything good (Genesis 1:31). Satan and his angels fell (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Isaiah 14:12-15 & Ezekiel 28 may allude to the fall of Satan, but the context is comparing it with the attitudes and destruction of ungodly human kings). The source of evil is not in God’s power but in man’s freedom as he was able to sin. “If the fall was a historical event, we may hope it can be undone through historical events. If we deny that sin can enter the world by a historical person, we must deny that righteousness came into the world by a historical person. If we deny the historical Adam, we must deny the historical Jesus.” – John Frame 1 1 Frame, John. Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology. P & R Publishing: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 2006, p. 107. 2 “The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his help; affording him communion with Himself; instituting the Sabbath; entering into a covenant of life with Him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.” - The Westminster Larger Catechism, #20 II. Question #2: “How Could God Create a World & Allow Suffering?” 1) A Skeptic’s Response – “There must not be a God because of suffering.” “If a good and powerful God exists, He would not allow pointless evil, but because there is much unjustifiable, pointless evil in the world, the traditional good and powerful God could not exist. Some other god or no god may exist, but not the traditional God.” — J. L. Mackie 2 “Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or He can, but does not want to; or He cannot and does not want to. If He wants to, but cannot, He is impotent. IF He can, and does not want to, He is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?” – Epicurus 2 Howard-Snyder, Daniel, “God, Evil, and Suffering”, a summary of J.L. Mackie’s argument, Eerdmans, 1999, p. 84. 3 2) Questions to Ask Skeptic If you abandon belief in God, does it make the problem of evil easier to solve? Without God, what basis do you have for distinguishing good from evil? What do these terms mean if there is no personal God? Does the presence of suffering necessarily mean the absence of God? “The problem of tragedy, suffering, and injustice is a problem for everyone. It’s as big a problem for nonbelief in God than for belief in Him. It’s a mistake, though an understandable one, to think that if you abandon belief in God it somehow makes the problem of evil easier to handle.” – Tim Keller 3 3) A Christian’s Response – “God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all- good. Our suffering can build character and lead to repentance.”4 God is all-powerful – He can do everything that is meaningful, possible, and that makes any sense at all. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” — Isaiah 55:9 God is all-knowing – God knows what will result from suffering. God is all-good – God can work things out for the good, even when we do not see it. “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” — Genesis 50:20 3 Keller, Timothy J. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Dutton: New York, 2008, p. 27. 4 Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2000, pp. 48-56. 4 Our suffering can build our character. “Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit whom He has given us.” — Romans 5:3-5 Our suffering can lead us to repentance. “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains. It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” – CS Lewis 5 God will judge those who mistreat others. “Justice delayed is not necessarily justice denied.” – Peter Kreeft 6 “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Do not take revenge, my friends, by leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” — Romans 12:17, 19, 21 III. Question #3 – “Does God Care That I’m Hurting?” 1) A Skeptic’s Response: “Even though God is all-powerful, all- knowing, and all-good, it’s still hard to accept that He allows suffering. I’m hurting.” 2) A Christian’s Response: “The Christian God came to earth to put Himself on the hook of human suffering.” 5 Lewis, CS. The Problem of Pain. MacMillan: New York, 1962, p. 93. 6 Kreeft, Peter. Making Sense out of Suffering. Servant: Ann Arbor, MICH, 1986, p. viii. 5 God experienced in His Son, firsthand despair, rejection, loneliness, poverty, and torture. Jesus suffered a 3 hour death by slow suffocation and blood loss. Jesus was in agony and tried to avoid death. The worst tragedy in human history brought about the most glorious event in human history. “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” – Isaiah 53:5 “I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross…in the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have entered many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from all the agonies of the world. But each time after a while I have had to turn away. And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in God-forsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside His immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manageable in light of His. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross which symbolizes divine suffering. The cross of Christ…is God’s only self-justification in such a world as ours.” – John Stott 7 7 Stott, John R.W. The Cross of Christ. Duckworth: London, 1916, pp. 335-336 6 *An Important Note to the Christian* When people wrestle with this question, they are usually deeply hurting. The first thing we need to do is listen to them. Be aware of their pain and empathize with them as they hurt. Address the pain and don’t go quickly into an answer. This will turn them away and not address their heart. “Like one who takes away a garment on a cold day, or like vinegar poured on a wound, is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.” - Proverbs 25:20 Group Discussion Questions 1) Without God, how could someone describe where evil came from? 2) What would you say to someone who asked, “How could a loving God allow suffering & evil to exist?” 3) Why is the suffering of Jesus so helpful to people in time of pain? How can you communicate this effectively? 4) Why is it important to address the hurt of those asking this question first before jumping into a logical discussion? 7 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodicy: an Overview
    1 Theodicy: An Overview Introduction All of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to someone, either ourselves, our family, our friends, our nation, or perhaps some particularly disturbing instance in the news—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. The following material is meant to give an overview of the discussion of this issue as it takes place in several circles, especially that of the Christian church. I. The Problem of Evil Defined Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to explain why it exists (Unde malum?) and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed, something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world. Peter Berger in particular has argued that explanations of evil are necessary for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces. It follows, then, that such an explanation has an impact on the whole person. As David Blumenthal observes, a good theodicy is one that has three characteristics: 1. "[I]t should leave one with one’s sense of reality intact." (It tells the truth about reality.) 2. "[I]t should leave one empowered within the intellectual-moral system in which one lives." (Namely, it should not deny God’s basic power or goodness.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Philosophical Audacity
    A Philosophical Audacity Barth’s Notion of Experience Between Neo-Kantianism and Nietzsche1 Anthony Feneuil [email protected] This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: “A Philosophical Audacity: Barth’s Notion of Experience Between Neo-Kantianism and Nietzsche“, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijst.12077/full. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving Abstract: This article addresses Barth’s dialectical notion of experience in the 1920s. I argue that the theoretical problem raised by recent studies on Barth’s notion of experience after his break with liberalism (i.e., the apparent inconsistency between Barth’s move towards an increasingly neo-Kantian understanding of experience and his emphasis on the existential and psychological dimensions of experience) can be solved by the hypothesis of a Nietzschean influence on Barth's epistemology in the 1920s. I defend not only the historical plausibility but also the conceptual fecundity of such a hypothesis, which casts a new light on Barth’s relation to philosophy and the notion of experience, and lays the basis for a consistent Barthian theology of experience. *** Theology is not a discreet slice of knowledge you could simply add to one philosophy or other. It exists nowhere but through philosophy, and that is why Barth’s theological innovation cannot manifest itself apart from philosophical innovation. Barth is not a philosopher, and he does not explicitly develop his concepts in a philosophical way. But Barth repeatedly claims we cannot grant theology an extraordinary status among human discourses.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting the Theology of Barth in Light of Nietzsche's Dictum “God Is Dead”
    Interpreting the theology of Barth in light of Nietzsche’s dictum “God is dead” André J Groenewald Pastor: Presbyterian Church of Scotland Edinburgh, Scotland Abstract Karl Barth responded with his theology to Nietzsche’s dictum “God is dead” by stating that God is the living God. God does not need the human race to exist. God reveals God self to humankind whenever God wills. Barth agreed with Nietzsche that the god of the nineteenth century was a “Nicht-Gott”. The article aims to discus Karl Barth’s respons to Nietzsche’s impulse towards the development of a concept of God that would lead to neither atheism nor theism. The article argues that Barth paved the way for talking about God by defining God as the “communicative God”. 1. INTRODUCTION In his book, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, originally written in 1882, Nietzsche tells about a mad man who runs around in a marketplace looking for “God” (Nietzsche 1973:159). Since he cannot find God, he can only reach one conclusion. God is dead! Nietzsche did not per se deny or affirm the existence of God. He announced the death of the god of modernity (Ward [1997] 1998:xxix; Groenewald 2005:146). He had a problem with the notion of “Fortschritt” according to which history has proven that human beings develop to greater heights of their own accord and that the potential for progress is intrinsic to humankind (Nietzsche 1969a:169; 1972: 304, 309, 310; see Jensen 2006:47, 51). “God’s existence and providence could then be proven on account of this optimistic progress in the course of history” (Groenewald 2005:146).
    [Show full text]
  • The Compatibility of an Existential Perspective with Religion
    CHAPTER 8 THE COMPATIBILITY OF AN EXISTENTIAL PERSPECTIVE WITH RELIGION “In discussions of Existentialism, this idea of the baselessness and arbitrariness of human values is almost always the one that arouses protest.” (Van Cleve Morris, 1990, Existentialism in Education, p. 41) Concerns raised in response to any perspective described as existential are usually based upon the apparent ‘arbitrariness’ of values as identified by Morris in the passage above. A perspective of existential spirituality might be assumed to be potentially at odds with religious views because it privi- leges the centring of the person rather than of a doctrinal framework and therefore it might be considered as being inappropriate for religious-based schools. The purpose of this chapter is to examine whether the perspective of existential spirituality being developed here can be compatible with religious views, and if so, how it must be conceptualised. If existential philosophy is unable to readily lend itself to an acceptance of a deity and is unable to be seen as being able to embrace religious views, then opposition towards the adoption of existential spirituality for education could fairly be raised, not least because many educational institutions in western societies are clearly affiliated with various religions, especially those of Christianity. Sartre’s views have often made Existentialism appear inherently atheistic. A well-known connotation imputed to the philosophy is its denial of the existence of a deity or even of his ‘death’ but who in turn might be otherwise able to provide meaning to the lives of individuals. Christian theologians such as Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann, who have used existential philosophy as a basis for their interpretations, often tend to demythologise religion giving little notice to the deity as an aspect of their particular world-views.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Barth's Understanding of Mission: the Church in Relationship
    Karl Barth’s understanding of mission: The Church in relationship1 W Bentley2 (University of Pretoria) ABSTRACT Karl Barth’s understanding of mission: The Church in relationship As the Church is moving towards its 21st century of existence, it is confronted by challenges it has never known before. This changing world demands self-reflection within the Church. It has to consider its place, identity and function, thereby giving rise to the exploration of its mission. In this article, the ecclesiology of Karl Barth is explored. By considering Barth’s understanding of the Church’s relationship with different parties such as God, other religions, those outside the Christian faith, the State and its own inner dynamics, the Church will be reminded of its missionary function in the world. 1 INTRODUCTION Is the Church’s missional function still valid in a world that is faced with ever increasing challenges? It seems that a world governed by modernist principles and challenged by post-modern philosophies, necessitates the need for the Church to think creatively about its mission. Barth’s description of the Church’s mission provides a good model that would facilitate such a process. This model focuses on the Church’s relationships and defines mission accordingly. Before discussing Barth’s definition of the Church as it exists in relationship with the different entities, attention needs to be given to Barth’s description of the mission of the Church as found in Church Dogmatics. 2 THE MISSION AND FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH Barth starts by defining the Mission and Function of the Church in Church Dogmatics Volume 1 (Barth 1956a:743-884) by describing 1 This article is based on research done for a PhD degree in the Department of Dogmatics and Christian Ethics of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria.
    [Show full text]
  • The Epistemological Development of Karl Barth
    Af)oria Vol. 10 number 1,2000 The Epistemological Development of Karl Barth SAMUEL NEWLANDS Karl Earth's early theological epistemology, often expressed in terms of a negative dialectic or man's acknowledgement of being known, is characteristically founded upon a firm distinction between God and man, wherein the former is qualitatively different and wholly other than the latter. This distinction lies at the foundation of Earth's early dialectical theology and is frequently expressed throughout his commentary on Romans, as well as Church Dogmatics. For the early Earth, the extent of man's knowledge ofGod is aptly summarized in his opening remarks of The Epistle to the Romans: We know that God is He whom we do not know,and that our ignorance is precisely the problem and source of our knowledge. We know that God is the Personality which we are not...The recognition of the absolute heteronomy under which we stand is itself an autonomous recognition; and this is precisely that which may be known of God. (Epistle 45) It is somewhat surprising to find the same theologian, less than a decade later in 1936, claiming that "to know Jesus Christ is to know God, the one and only God, majestic and personal, the Creator and Lord of the world and man"(Knowledge 71). This later epistemological claim appears to lack the emphasis on the difference between God and man and even goes so far as to predicate positive properties of God. Sam Newlands is a senior philosophy student at Wake Forest University. In the fall, he will continue his philosophical studies by pursuing a doctorate in the philosophy of religion at Yale University.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil As a Moral Objection to Theism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AS A MORAL OBJECTION TO THEISM by TOBY GEORGE BETENSON A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. Department of Philosophy School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham September 2014 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract: I argue that the problem of evil can be a moral objection to theistic belief. The thesis has three broad sections, each establishing an element in this argument. Section one establishes the logically binding nature of the problem of evil: The problem of evil must be solved, if you are to believe in God. And yet, I borrow from J. L. Mackie’s criticisms of the moral argument for the existence of God, and argue that the fundamentally evaluative nature of the premises within the problem of evil entails that it cannot be used to argue for the non- existence of God.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problematic of the Augustinian Doctrine of Grace for Contemporary Theology D
    Journal for Christian Theological Research Volume 5 Article 2 2000 Nature Dis-Graced and Grace De-Natured: The Problematic of the Augustinian Doctrine of Grace for Contemporary Theology D. Lyle Dabney Marquette University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/jctr Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Dabney, D. Lyle (2000) "Nature Dis-Graced and Grace De-Natured: The rP oblematic of the Augustinian Doctrine of Grace for Contemporary Theology," Journal for Christian Theological Research: Vol. 5 , Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/jctr/vol5/iss2000/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal for Christian Theological Research by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Luther Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 12/18/2017 Nature Dis-Graced and Grace De-Natured: The Problematic of the Augustinian Doctrie of Grace for Contemporary Theology D. Lyle Dabney, "Nature Dis­Graced and Grace De­Natured: The Problematic of the Augustinian Doctrine of Grace for Contemporary Theology," Journal for Christian Theological Research [http://apu.edu/~CTRF/articles/2000_articles/dabney.html] 5:3 (2000). Nature Dis­Graced and Grace De­Natured: The Problematic of the Augustinian Doctrine of Grace for Contemporary Theology D. Lyle Dabney Marquette University , Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1. "Contemporary theology" Kilian McDonnell writes, "has turned from a theology of the Word to a theology of the world".(1) That statement, it seems to me, neatly sums up the current situation in theology.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Karl Barth's Theology: Focused on the Doctrines of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit
    Human Behavior, Development and Society ISSN 2651-1762, Vol 21 No 1, March 2020 An Overview of Karl Barth’s Theology: Focused on the Doctrines of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit Sanghoon Jee1, Asia-Pacific International University, Thailand Date Received: 6 November 2019 Revised: 20 January 2020 Accepted: 19 February 2020 Abstract Karl Barth, the founder of neo-orthodoxy, is one of the most influential theologians in the modern Christian world. He has turned the direction of the stream of Protestant theology in the twentieth century. The purpose of this study was to give an overview of the theology of Karl Barth. This is useful in order to gain an accurate grasp of the trends in modern Christian theology. After a brief survey of his life and works, this study provides an overview of Barth’s theology, focusing on three major areas of his theology: the doctrines of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. In order to give a better understanding of trends in modern Christian theology, Barth’s emphasis upon the transcendence of God, the centrality of Jesus Christ in Christian theology, and the importance of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity cannot be ignored. In a word, Barth’s theology has both a continuity with and a discontinuity from liberal theology at the same time. Keywords: Karl Barth, neo-orthodoxy, transcendence, Christology, Holy Spirit Introduction Karl Barth (1886–1968) has generally been considered as one of the most outstanding Protestant theological thinkers of the twentieth century (Peerman & Marty, 1965, p. 396), and he could be called a modern “church father.” Torrance (1962, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Theological Seminary the CONTINUING RELEVANCE of KARL BARTH's CRITIQUE of LIBERAL THEOLOGY a Report Presented in Partial F
    Union Theological Seminary THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF KARL BARTH'S CRITIQUE OF LIBERAL THEOLOGY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Divinity at Union Theological Seminary Dr. James Cone and Dr. Gary Dorrien by Stephen Joseph Sarma-Weierman April 10, 2015 APRIL 10, 2015 CONTENTS THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF KARL BARTH'S CRITIQUE …................................... 1 Introduction: Karl Barth and the Mainline Church Today 1 Modern Protestant Theology and the Early Barth 5 Barth's Disenchantment 10 Barth in Dialogue 13 Rudolph Bultmann 13 Paul Tillich 18 Moving Beyond Liberalism and Barth 21 The Task of Theology: Some Preliminary Thoughts on Ecclesiology 26 The Failure of Liberal Theology to Become Liberation Theology 28 Supernaturalism Revisited 34 Re-Imagining the Church by Building Upon the Three-fold Word of God 36 Revelation and Mystery Revisited 44 Conclusion 46 APPENDIX I: ON THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF EDWARD SCHILLEBEECKX …................... 48 Schillebeeckx's Early Christology and Ecclesiology 48 Schillebeeckx's Later Christology and Ecclesiology 50 APPENDIX II: “APOLOGETIC” AFTERWORD …................................................................. 54 Bibliography …............................................................................................................................. 55 ii THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF KARL BARTH'S CRITIQUE OF LIBERAL THEOLOGY It is the contention of the author that all theology is both practical and incomplete. It is practical, in that it must be of service to the Universal Church and the faithful. It is incomplete in that it is always but a fragment—a small contribution to a long ongoing dialogue. The spirit of this work can be summed up in the words of Karl Barth: “The gospel is not a truth among other truths. Rather, it sets a question-mark against all truths.”1 In this fragment, I will begin with liberal Protestant theology and Barth, and I will end with the Church today, remembering that the Gospel of Christ holds a question-mark against this and all theological endeavors.
    [Show full text]
  • Ebook Download Reading the Gospels with Karl Barth 1St Edition Pdf Free Download
    READING THE GOSPELS WITH KARL BARTH 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Daniel L Migliore | 9780802873637 | | | | | Reading the Gospels with Karl Barth 1st edition PDF Book Main article: Charlotte von Kirschbaum. Although my grasp of their arguments was imperfect, it seemed to me obvious that the Enlightenment philosophers posed a lethal threat to Christian belief. The primary purpose of traditional natural theology was to show the indissoluble connection between the human intellect and a transcendent God who is Being itself. Theological liberalism offered itself as a respectable way to preserve the culture, language, and ethics of Christianity without abandoning modern philosophy. Karl Barth proposes a new solution to the Law and Gospel debate. You are commenting using your Google account. And of course, Dogmatics in Outline is a valuable piece, as its own sort of model of what the dogmatic task looks like done as landscape survey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Mangina, Joseph. But the uniqueness of Christianity was a matter of personal experience, not demonstrable knowledge. Over the course of his multivolume Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth not only cites thousands of Scripture texts but also offers extensive exegetical discussion of numerous passages. Modern people had demanded freedom for human self-expression, and Barth only asked that the same courtesy be extended to God. In this post, I'll share Barth's solution to the Law and Gospel debate, and provide a helpful explanation of it by John D. Karl Barth: Theologian of Christian Witness. As an ordained Presbyterian minister, he served as a student outreach pastor and as a faculty member of the Karlshohe College in the German Lutheran Church.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unreal God of Modern Theology: Bultmann, Barth, and the Theology of Atheism: a Call to Recovering the Truth of Gods Reality" by K
    Swarthmore College Works Religion Faculty Works Religion 1-1-1991 Review Of "The Unreal God Of Modern Theology: Bultmann, Barth, And The Theology Of Atheism: A Call To Recovering The Truth Of Gods Reality" By K. Bockmuehl Mark I. Wallace Swarthmore College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-religion Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Mark I. Wallace. (1991). "Review Of "The Unreal God Of Modern Theology: Bultmann, Barth, And The Theology Of Atheism: A Call To Recovering The Truth Of Gods Reality" By K. Bockmuehl". Journal Of Religion. Volume 71, Issue 1. 107-107. DOI: 10.1086/488556 https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-religion/50 This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religion Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Reviews tion in certain geopolitical affairs on behalf of the U.S. government, recommend it as a major contribution to the study of American Catholic history. SCOTT APPLEBY, University of Chicago. BOCKMUEHL, KLAUS. The Unreal God ofModern Theology: Bultmann, Barth, and the Theology ofAtheism: A Call to Recovering the Truth of God's Reality. Translated by G. W. BROMILEY. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Helmers& Howard, 1988. 183 pp. This translation of a 1985 German volume is a critical study of the implicit "athe­ ism" within the theologies ofRudolfBultmann and Karl Barth. Klaus Bockmuehl argues that both thinkers disallow the concrete presence of God in the world because they define revelation as a factor within salvation history, not the world history of everyday experience.
    [Show full text]