In this volume Joachim Ringleben offers detailed proof that both the Word of God theology of Karl Barth and the Symbol Theory of Paul Tillich do not properly reflect the specifically linguistic nature of the "Word of God." In this volume Joachim Ringleben shows that both Karl Barth and Paul Tillich neglect the important term "Word of God" and its linguistic nature. Although Barth based his dogmatic theology on the teachings of the Word of God, he set himself programmatically apart from a description of the deity of God in human language. Tillich conceived a nonlinguistic concept of symbol in the name of abstract transcendence, which relegates religion to prelinguistic references. In both cases this tendency to remove language carries with it the danger of eliminating the specifically linguistic meaning from the Word of God.

In this volume Joachim Ringleben offers detailed proof that both the Word of God theology of Karl Barth and the Symbol Theory of Paul Tillich do not properly reflect the specifically linguistic nature of the "Word of God." In this volume Joachim Ringleben shows that both Karl Barth and Paul Tillich neglect the important term "Word of God" and its linguistic nature. Although Barth based his dogmatic theology on the teachings of the Word of God, he set himself programmatically apart from a description of the deity of God in human language. Tillich conceived a nonlinguistic concept of symbol in the name of abstract transcendence, which relegates religion to prelinguistic references. In both cases this tendency to remove language carries with it the danger of eliminating the specifically linguistic meaning from the Word of God.

In this volume Joachim Ringleben offers detailed proof that both the Word of God theology of Karl Barth and the Symbol Theory of Paul Tillich do not properly reflect the specifically linguistic nature of the "Word of God." In this volume Joachim Ringleben shows that both Karl Barth and Paul Tillich neglect the important term "Word of God" and its linguistic nature. Although Barth based his dogmatic theology on the teachings of the Word of God, he set himself programmatically apart from a description of the deity of God in human language. Tillich conceived a nonlinguistic concept of symbol in the name of abstract transcendence, which relegates religion to prelinguistic references. In both cases this tendency to remove language carries with it the danger of eliminating the specifically linguistic meaning from the Word of God.