Abstract:
In the previous issue, the translation of the first part of the article was presented, which focused more on describing the important events of Barth's life and the importance of his role and thought in twentieth-century theology. In this article, which includes the second and final part, while completing the discussion of the previous number, the characteristics of Barth's works, his position regarding modernity and liberal theology, and the method of interpreting Barth's works are addressed. Additionally, attention is paid to the very important point that in light of the publication of Barth's unpublished works, a different and more accurate reading of his theology can now be had, setting aside some old cliché expressions. In the present article, given the details that might have been tedious and irrelevant for the Persian-speaking reader, we have endeavored to present the remainder of Dr. Webster's writing in an abridged and translated form to interested readers. Furthermore, to clarify some specific theological concepts and terms and to resolve ambiguities, explanations have been added to the text.
Machine summary:
In this article, which includes the second and final part, while completing the discussion of the previous number, the characteristics of Barth's works, his position towards modernity and liberal theology, and the method of interpreting Barth's works are addressed.
With his ruthless attack in the pamphlet "No!"1 against his former colleague Emil Brunner regarding natural theology, he not only bid farewell forever to his former group of dialectical theologians, but also provided evidence to several generations of readers of his works in North America to imagine that he was originally a dialectical person (and a bold one at that) and not a theologian who, in the positive sense of the word, had created a theological system for the church.
Furthermore, it has now become completely clear that the factor in the development of Barth's thought prior to his work on "dogmatics" was distinctly theological, as what shaped his thinking was the deep study of the Bible, and a condensed examination of the views of traditional Christian theology and its modern branches.
In conclusion, it must be said that Barth's most important service to Christian theology and church history was his works in the field of doctrines, and on this basis, it can be said that the best research on Barth will always be those that take his attention to dogmatics seriously and engage in the study, investigation, and critique of his works within this framework.
(
, 
, 
)
