Given my interest in eschatology, one of my main goals this semester is to deepen my knowledge of both Moltmann and Pannenberg. I've given significantly less attention to the latter thus far, so I thought it might be fun to bring the readers of DET along for the ride as I begin to address this deficit. Without further delay here is the first of (hopefully) many snippets of reflection on his Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 2010).The opening chapter of Pannenberg's ST is entitled "The Truth of Christian Doctrine as the Theme of Systematic Theology," and his initial discussion revolves around defining what the word "theology" means. While there are several points of interest in these initial pages, I want to point out how at the outset Pannenberg begins to reveal his relationship to Karl Barth, noting two instances in particular. His statement that "in the concept of theology the truth of theological discourse as discourse about God that God himself has authorized is always presupposed" (p. 7) demonstrates an affinity with Barth, but prior to that he has already begun to suggest that he will differ from Barth regarding how "creatures can attain to the knowledge of God." As he writes, "in any case, whether inside the Christian church or outside it, and even in the so-called natural knowledge of God, no knowledge of God and no theology are conceivable that do not proceed from God and are not due to the working of his Spirit" (p. 2). I am unclear whether Pannenberg is advocating a different understanding of natural theology or a theology of nature in this opening section; based on other reading I have my suspicions, but for now I will leave it open. Regardless, I look forward to seeing how he develops this further.
I assume that those familiar with Pannenberg are already well aware of how these statements can be fleshed out and nuanced, and if anyone can and desires to please jump in, but for my part I will hold off until the argument unfolds naturally further down the road in the texts. For now let me end by noting that already from these first eight pages I have the suspicion that tracing the relationship between Barth and Pannenberg's theology would make for quite an enriching endeavor, one that I look forward to doing in some measure here at DET.
==================================
Follow @marisd


My name is Matthew Warren. I go by both Matt and Matthew; it's your call. I grew up in South Jersey by Atlantic City and Ocean City; incidentally, I love surfing and the Phillies. I graduated from The College of New Jersey in 2008 with a BA in History and minors in Sociology and Philosophy. Last year, I graduated with an MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, and I am presently studying systematic theology at PTS in the ThM program. This semester is both exciting and busy with courses on the history of Trinitarian doctrine, the theology of Schleiermacher, and the relation of election and ethics in Barth's CD II.2. Even as I study I have also had the opportunity to teach as an adjunct instructor at Middlesex County College. Last semester I taught Introductory Ethics, and this semester I will be teaching Western Civ. II. When I am not studying or teaching, I get to work with a church in Feasterville, PA called The Well as part of the preaching and teaching team. I am actually preaching this Sunday on 1 Peter 2:4-10. My wife is Ashley. She teaches 4th and 5th grade Spanish, and she's awesome. We live in an apartment a few miles from PTS.
Here is an interesting tidbit wherein Brown compares Augustine and Ambrose. I offer it because Augustine often gets described as an austere, unapproachable figure, off by himself reading and writing with precious little human contact. Indeed, this lack of contact is supposed to be the source of his less than desirable views on human sexuality (more on that in another post). The truth is quite the opposite, as we glimpse in the below.
If you know anything about me, you'll know that I love the theology of Karl Barth. While I find various aspects of his theology to be quite problematic (his views of women in volume III for starters), I completely affirm his central conviction that the Gospel is primarily a word about the identity and work of God as revealed in Jesus Christ (Emmanuel) and only then a liberating word for humanity. I often feel like Jaroslav Pelikan when he once said that it wasn't so much that he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, but rather he peeled back the layers to find that which he always believed. The more and more I study the theology of Barth, I realize that his doctrine of God and the identity of God as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ are things I always believed in the faintest sense but never had the conceptual tools to formalize them. I believe that Barth's understanding of the identity of God offers an essential and necessary corrective to the various patriarchal conceptions of God as offered by most of classical western theology. In light of this, I'm interested in bringing Sarah Coakley into conversation with Barth's christology.