Ontological proof in the theology of K. Barth, interpreted by H. Urs von Balthasar and B. McCormack
https://doi.org/10.28995/2658-4158-2025-4-67-85
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the role of interpretation of the ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury in the work of Karl Barth, one of the greatest representatives of Protestant theology of the 20th century. The author focuses on how Barth formulated this argument within the framework of his theology of the Word of God, seeking to reject any form of dependence on philosophy. The aim of the study is to identify the particularities of understanding the role of the ontological argument in two key traditions of studying Barth’s work: the first, represented by Hans Urs von Balthasar, and the second by Bruce McCormack. Balthasar emphasizes the significance of Barth’s two “conversions,” especially the one from dialectical theology to the analogy of faith (analogia fidei) and which is fixed with the publication of his work «Fides quaerens intellectum». McCormack, in contrast, emphasizes a smooth and gradual development, and considers the «Göttingen Dogmatics», but not «Fides quaerens intellectum», to be a landmark work for Barth. The article provides a detailed comparison of the approaches of both traditions to understanding Barth’s interpretation of the ontological argument and demonstrates how each interprets both Barth’s intellectual development as a whole and his thought in «Fides quaerens intellectum». Also, the paper considers the views of contemporary scholars on the role of «Fides quaerens intellectum» and their relationship to the paradigms of Balthasar and McCormack.
Keywords
Karl Barth,
Hans Urs von Balthasar,
Bruce McCormack,
Fides quaerens intellectum,
analogia fidei,
dialectical theology
Supporting agencies: This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project “Ontological proof of the Existence of God in German-language theology and Russian religious philosophy of the 20th century in the problem of thinking being and faith revelation”, no. 25-28-00992.
About the Author
A. V. Losev
Russian State University for Humanities
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anton V. Losev
References
1. Anderson, C.D. (2013), “Reason” in Burnett, R.E. (ed.), The Westminster Handbook to Karl Barth, John Knox Press, Westminster, pp. 172–173.
2. Balthasar, H.U. (1976), Karl Barth. Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theologie, Johannes Verlag, Einsiedeln, Switzerland.
3. Barth, K. (1927), Die Christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf. Erste Band: Die Lehre vom Worte Gottes, Prolegomena zur christlichen Dogmatik, Chr. Keiser Verlag, München, Germany.
4. Barth, K. (1931), Fides quaerens intellectum, Theologischer Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland.
5. Barth, K. (2005), Poslanie k Rimlyanam [Epistle to Romans], Bibleisko-bogoslovskii institut svyatogo apostola Andreya, Moscow, Russia.
6. Beintker, M. (2013), “Analogy” in Burnett, R.E. (ed.), The Westminster Handbook to Karl Barth, John Knox Press, Westminster, pp. 3–6.
7. Congdon, D.W. (2015), The mission of demythologizing. Rudolf Bultmann’s dialectical theology, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, USA.
8. Green, G. (2013), “Faith” in Burnett, R.E. (ed.), The Westminster Handbook to Karl Barth, John Knox Press, Westminster, pp. 72–74.
9. Haley, J.P. (2020), “The anhypostasis and enhypostasis: Barth’s Christological method in view of Chalcedon – its nuance and complexity”, Stellenbosch Theological Journal, vol 6, no 1, pp. 357–382.
10. Ilyushchenko E.V. and Pylaev M.A. (2022), “The ontological argument by S. Frank and K. Barthes”, RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. “Philosophy. Sociology. Art Studies” Series, no. 1, pp. 23–35.
11. Johnson, W.C. (1997), The mystery of God. Karl Barth and the postmodern foundations of theology, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, USA.
12. Johnson, K.L. (2010), Karl Barth and the analogia entis, T&T Clark, London, UK. (T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology)
13. Johnson, K.L. (2019), “Karl Barth and Roman Catholicism” in Jones, P.D. and Nimmo, P.T., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 147–162.
14. Long, S.L. (2014), Saving Karl Barth. Hans Urs von Balthasar’s preoccupation, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, USA.
15. McCormack, B.L. (1995), Karl Barth’s critically realistic dialectical theology. Its genesis and development, 1909–1936, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
16. Pugh, J.C. (1990), The Anselmic shift: Christology and method in Karl Barth’s theology, Peter Lang, New York, USA, Bern, Switzerland, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Paris, France. (American University Studies, Series VII, Theology and Religion; vol. 68)
17. Pylaev, M. A. (2016), “Philosophy and theology in Karl Barth’s ‘Neo-Orthodoxy’”, Vestnik PSTGU. Bogoslovie. Filosofiya. Religiovedenie, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 26–39.
18. Pylaev, M.A. (2019), Kategoriya «svyashchennoe» v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii XX veka [The category of “sacred” in 20th century phenomenology of religion, theology, and philosophy], RGGU, Moscow, Russia.
19. Smith, S.G. (1983), The argument to the Other. Reason beyond reason in the thought of Karl Barth and Emmanuel Levinas, Scholars Press, Chico, USA.
20. Velde, D.T. (2019), “Barth and Protestant Orthodoxy” in Jones, P.D. and Nimmo, P.T., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 116–132.
21. Webb, S.H. (1991), Re-figuring theology: The rhetoric of Karl Barth, State University of New York Press, Albany, USA.
22. Wigley, S.D. (1993), “Karl Barth on St. Anselm. The influence of Anselm’s: “Theological Scheme” on T.F. Torrance and Eberhard Jüngel”, Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 46, iss. 1, pp 79–97.
23. Wigley, S.D. (2003), “The von Balthasar thesis: a re-examination of von Balthasar’s study of Barth in the light of Bruce McCormack”, Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 56, iss. 3, pp 345–359.
24. Wigley, S.D. (2006), Karl Barth and Hans Urs von Balthasar. A critical engagement. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Review
For citations:
Losev A.V. Ontological proof in the theology of K. Barth, interpreted by H. Urs von Balthasar and B. McCormack. Studia Religiosa Rossica: Russian Journal of Religion. 2025;(4):67-85. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2658-4158-2025-4-67-85
Views:
97
Email this article 