Browsing by Author "Haley, James P."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The anhypostasis and enhypostasis: Barth's Christological method in view of Chalcedon - its nuance and complexity
    (Pieter de Waal Neethling Trust, 2020) Haley, James P.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Karl Barth departs from historical Protestant orthodoxy in his unique adoption of the dual formula anhypostasis and enhypostasis to explain the union of divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ. For Barth, these concepts help explain why the person of Jesus Christ must not be viewed statically in his being as the God-man, but dynamically in the event of God's movement of grace towards humanity. As such, Barth applies these concepts in his analysis of the Chalcedon definition of the Jesus Christ who exists as one person with two natures. In so doing, Barth further develops Chalcedon's definition of the two natures of Christ based upon the hypostatica unio. Not only must Chalcedon be interpreted through the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as event, but also event in the union of this human essence as the Son of Man as it participates in the divine essence.1 For Barth, the emphasis is not the combining of divine and human essence into one being, but that the eternal Christ has taken to himself human essence as the one Reconciler.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The humanity of Christ : the significance of the anhypostasis and enhypostsasis in Karl Barth's Christology
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2015-03) Haley, James P.; Vosloo, Robert; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Theology. Dept. of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation is a critical analysis of the significance that the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature play in Karl Barth’s Christology. It does so in five parts. First, this dissertation examines the historical orthodox understanding of the concepts anhypostasis and enhypostasis to explain the human nature of Christ, and defend the Chalcedon definition of the two natures in the patristic, scholastic, and post-scholastic periods. Historically, orthodox writers consistently express anhypostasis and enhypostasis as autonomous concepts, where enhypostasis refers to the reality of Christ’s human nature in union with the Logos, and anhypostasis expresses Christ’s human nature as having no subsistent reality outside its union with the Logos. Karl Barth appropriates anhypostasis and enhypostasis as a dual formula to express the humanity of Christ, which moves beyond historical orthodoxy and is unique to his Christology. Second, this dissertation evaluates Karl Barth’s unique interpretation of the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature as a dual and congruent formula to express how the humanity of Christ exists in union with His divine essence. Third, this dissertation follows the historical development of anhypostasis and enhypostasis in Karl Barth’s Christology and its ontological function in Barth’s development of the revelation of Jesus Christ as the ‘Word became flesh’. In his break with liberal theology Karl Barth emphasizes that the revelation of God is made manifest exclusively in the person of Jesus Christ, which is ontologically grounded in the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. Fourth, this dissertation identifies the themes of coalescence between the divine and human natures of Christ where Barth expresses Christ’s human nature as anhypostasis and enhypostasis in His role as the mediator of reconciliation between God and humanity. Fifth, this dissertation evaluates Barth’s critique of Chalcedon’s definition of the two natures expressed through the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. While Barth does not disagree with Chalcedon, he desires to express more precisely the union of divine and human natures in Christ as the act of God’s revelation, as the Son of Man, in His exaltation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Karl Barth’s interpretative construal of the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature in relation to historical Protestant Orthodoxy
    (Pieter de Waal Neethling Trust, 2017) Haley, James P.
    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.