Despite the burgeoning literature on Karl Barth, his doctrine of the Holy Spirit continues to be under-appreciated by his friends and critics alike. Yet, while Barth's commitment to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque) is well-known, many scholars dismiss his stand as ecumenically untenable and few have bothered to subject his stance on the Filioque to close theological analysis. For those interested in this long-standing ecumenical point of contention between Eastern and Western trinitarian theology, this book will show how Barth's doctrine of the Filioque may still have something to contribute to the debate. The work traces the origin of Barth's commitment to the Filioque in his early career (particularly in Romans and the Göttingen Dogmatics), and then analyzes how the doctrine functions throughout the Church Dogmatics. Guretzki concludes that Barth's doctrine of the Filioque, while clearly standing within the Western trinitarian tradition, is atypical in that he refuses to speak of a "double-procession" in favour of a "common procession" of the Spirit”a position that has more affinity with the Eastern position than many of Barth's critics may have thought
Biography
David Guretzki is Associate Professor of Theology at Briercrest College and Seminary (Caronport, Saskatchewan, Canada) where he has taught since 1993. He has an MA from Briercrest Seminary and a PhD from McGill University (Montreal). He is married to Maureen and has three children.
'David Guretzki’s book Karl Barth on the Filioque sets out to clarify the ’inner theological rationality’ of Barth’s defense and use of the filioque (17) from the earliest hints of its presence in the Epistle to the Romans through the Church Dogmatics...The work will be an invaluable read for academics interested in Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity or the history of the filioque controversy and its ongoing importance in modern ecumenical efforts.' Centre for Barth Studies website '... a book that is set well above many of its peers as a helpfully critical exposition of a theologian on whom a plethora of studies are now produced on a regular basis.' Colloquium
