God the eternal contemporary: Trinity, eternity and time in Karl Barth's «Church Dogmatics»
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the relation of eternity and time in the theology of Karl Barth (1886-1968), specifically the Church Dogmatics. In contrast to traditional views, Karl Barth defines eternity with reference to the central Christian doctrines of the Trinity and incarnation. Eternity is understood, then, not merely in its difference from time but as the life, order, and movement of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This dynamic view of eternity ensures a creative and positive relation to created temporality. To demonstrate this positive relation in Barth this thesis focuses on volumes III and IV of the Church Dogmatics. While briefly examining the doctrine of the Trinity in CD I/1 and the perfection of eternity in II/1, the bulk of the thesis examines how the discussion of temporality unfolds in later volumes. What develops is a trinitarian reinterpretation of time: the Father creates and preserves time as the theatre of covenantal relations; the incarnate Son recapitulates time by retrieving the original purpose of created time, which is lost to fallen humanity, and by redirecting all time on the way to the eschaton; while the Holy Spirit creates the time of the community as the correspondence to the fulfilling of time by the Son. Implicit in Barthâs view is a narrative view of time. Not only is time created for covenantal relations but also the overall narrative of Godâs creating, reconciling, and redeeming work controls the varied discussions of time. To explicate this, the first chapter examines traditional interpretations of eternity, briefly outlines Barthâs doctrines of the Trinity and eternity in CD I and II, and surveys the secondary literature. The second chapter outlines the argument of the dissertation by discussing time and analogy, and then by suggesting Barthâs position as an analogia trinitaria temporis. The next three chapters examine the times of the Father, Son, and Spirit respectively. The conclusion summarizes the dissertation by sugg
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".