The basic thesis that the author of this paper holds is that Barth rejected the natural theology based on the foundation of theology methodology, but persevered the value of general revelation. Christocentric revelation is emphasized in Barth’s theology. His theology left this author with the impression that he rejected all the natural theology. However he uses music to point to God. It seems that there is conflict between his thoughts. Therefore it is very vital to understand his thought of natural theology in order to understand the conflict. Moreover it helps readers to have a deeper methodology of theology. The author of this paper would like to make observation that the meaning of natural theology was quite close to general revelation,” mediation through natural, conscience, providential, ordering of history and tradition for a universal witness to God’s existence and character. The difference is that the former one is a theological method while the later one is a witness. However the usage of the terms is sometimes mixed. The term “natural theology” is sometimes signifies the ‘general revelation’. (Studies of debate between Barth and Brunner, No year or page) Such ambiguous usage of the terms is found in the debate between Barth and Brunner on natural theology.
Barth’s objected to Email Brunner objection and raised counter thesis, which later Barth rejected with a ‘NO!’ to Brunner’s challenge. Therefore the main ideas of these arguments are raised in this paper, and the focus on the underlying theological issue is the concern of the author.
Identifying Issue
Although both of them seem to be angry with each other, one would admire the way they refer to each other as “good friend” “ally” “appreciate him” “nothing against” “Sincerely respected” “extraordinary abilities” “walk together” However one can see bitter sides of both. Brunner asserts that he is not pleased with what Barth wrote about him. The positive side of this is where he says that he pockets it for he has other good things from Barth. Though he points out that he is doing this unwillingly. This encourages every theologian who read this so called Treatise. On the other hand Barth says that Brunner has crossed his path as an opponent of danger, and he feels challenged. When one readers this treatise, one can feel the pain of the two as they try to save their image of what they have said or written. Both seem to have great influence which is a fact i.e. “within a space of few years he completely changed the Protestant theological situation” and. “That I have heard the applause with which all who are of a like mind have greeted his essay.” Claims Barth.
As said earlier, is a collection of arguments of the 20th century which are well published. We see both theologians arguing and disagreeing over the point of contact for the gospel in the consciousness and natural man. Brunner’s argument is that the task of that generation lays on the efforts to find a way back to legitimate natural theology.
Barth makes a strong response and points out that there is no way to knowledge of God by way of human reason. Both Brunner and Barth had a strong Christocentric theology that there is no true knowledge of God, apart from through Jesus Christ. The Point of departure for these two theologians was the term “Natural theology”, Justification by faith, revelation and reason, Nature and Grace. The Book ‘natural theology’ points out that Brunner accuses Barth of his false conclusion of what he believed and what he has presented. Brunner actually calls Barth’s observation as heretical which he claims is the real danger to the church. (20 – 21). On the other hand Barth accuses Brunner of marking decision which is taking part in false movement of thought by which the church today is threatened.
In Brunner’s theology, there is grace in human’s nature and God’s creation. But in Barth theology, the concept of grace and nature were understood in two extremes that could not be placed together. Man was reconciled with God through Christ in grace only. In man’s nature one had done nothing that might be considered as synergism in grace. Barth seemingly followed the tradition reformed about understanding of grace. The risk of natural theology as the means of knowing God was that it included many pre- knowledge of God. Therefore, theologians might consider such knowledge adequate and does not expect revelation of God in grace. Thus it seems that natural theology rejected grace.
Brunner points out that Barth’s view as unbiblical, Thomastic and Catholic which he argues is against Reformation. In his effort to counter this he issued a counter theses which had scriptural proof, relation between dogma and reformation to Thomism and Neo Protestantism and finally the interest of theology and the church in rejection of the conclusions which Barth draws from his correct fundamental position. In response Barth points out that Brunner has already sent an alarm signal, and says that there was danger in Brunner’s essay about Nature and Grace. In his response Barth says that Brunner has proved that all that he seemed to have learnt has enabled him to return to the impetus of theology of compromise which has threatened the church. On the same breath Barth answers Brunner with a “No” for he believes that attempt to assert general theology has to be rejected. Barth made it clear to Brunner that there is no grace of creation and preservation.
In these arguments, Brunner does not blame Barth for neglecting and discrediting natural theology. He sees it as Barth’s special mission to serve at this point as a counter weight to dangerous aberrations. He (Brunner) asserts that a false natural theology did great damage to the Protestantism which threatens the church to a point of death. Page 59.1 Barth on the other hand points out that for Brunner to talk about natural theology he was starting a real theological problem, which he(Barth) says that it is a problem put to us by the truth presented in the scripture, creeds and confessions, that man is himself unable to fine access to the revelation of God.
Brunner and Barth put forward their points where they agree with one an other. i.e. Brunner agrees with Barth teaching of the original Image of God in Man which has been destroyed. Both seem to agree that the law of God is somehow also knowledge of God Pg 25. It is noticeable that a Barth point to Brunner that there is a difference in them in that they are faced with the question of what has to be done and how it has to be done.
However they disagree on other issues as discussed above, but they seem to do this with a lot of convincing efforts. See Barth’s rejection of Brunner’s theses judging it from the history of Dogma. When Brunner discussed “the other task of Theology” Barth points out that he knew that they were not in the same wave length = not one.
Barth made it clear that Christians believe is what must be confirmed as the content as object of faith and what has to be preached. He asserts that Faith is Trust which is God’s gift. In God alone is there faithfulness and faith is the trust to hold unto God. He further says that faith is concerned with a decision once and for all. Faith is not an opinion replaceable by another opinion. Faith is concern with God. Christian faith is an illumination of the reason in which man free to live in the truth of Jesus Christ. The creed of Christian faith rest upon knowledge. Knowledge of God takes place where there is actual experience that God speaks, that he also represents Himself to man. Christian knowledge means living in truth of Jesus Christ. In faith as confession -Christian faith is an event in the mystery between God and man. In other words it is man’s answer to historical existence and nature and action of God. Faith has to do with God. Faith is obedience, not just a passive accommodation of oneself. Therefore, if faith is real it must encroach upon one’s life. God is the Object of faith. He who is called God is not to be regarded as a continuation and enrichment of the concepts and ideas which constitute religious thought. God is not a particular instance within a class. God is in distinctive from all gods. God according to the scriptures live acts lives make himself know to us in the works of his love, resolved on and consummated in Jesus Christ. God is the Highest.
Karl Barth argues that the One God, God in the highest, the Only God is the Father, he is also the Son and he is the Holy Spirit. Three times the One and the Same, threefold, but above all the triune, he, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in himself and in the
highest and in his revelation. God is Almighty, which means that he is might. He is almightiness. (46 – 47) He is the creator, he creates sustains and he rules as the theater of His Glory. All things were brought to being through him, see “Let here be…” Genesis 1:1-24. About Heaven and earth Barth says that God is the creature on the boundary between heavens and earth. The boundary of our conceiving is not the boundary that separates us from God, but sorely that boundary which according to Barth the creed calls boundary between heaven and earth. About Jesus Christ the Barth points out that he is the way the truth and the life of men. God is the Alpha and the omega. The name Jesus and the Title Christ express the election, the person, and the work of the Man in whom the prophetic, priestly and kingly mission of the nation of Israel is revealed and set forth.
God’s revelation in the man Christ Jesus is compelling and excusive and God’s work in him is helpful and adequate for he himself is living through Himself (God living through Jesus) = the pronunciation of the truth Deity of Jesus. Therefore his existence is the virtual of his divinity who is our Lord and savior. He is the decision of God’s purpose and what God’s goal is not just for him but for every man
The Barth makes a theological statement by observing that in resurrection Jesus is once for all exalted and appointed to discover with God his right against all his foes. And so the end of his work is also the beginning of the end time that is of the time in which the church has proclaimed to the entire world the gracious omnipotence and the omnipotent grace of God. His grace and kingdom as the measure by which the whole humanity and every single human existence is measured. And the creed comes to an end by affirming believe in the Holy Ghost. The he points this to hope for the best of all, and this hope is a gift of God. As observed earlier in this summary this book is worthy reading for it makes one understand the purpose of the creed.
On several occasions the Barth refers to what the philosophers have defined God, meaning that he has a different definition of who God is. Where he is referring to God as the nature of different being. This is a philosophical idea. However he argues that the bible is not a philosophical book, and theologians would agree with him. Barth talks about God having almightiness, he further says that he himself is everything and he has the possibility. Philosophers describe God as the Supreme Being. He is describing the same but using different words; however he is quick to point out that theologians can not look at the bible as a theological book. The general explanation that the Barth gives in terms of what Christian believes is something admirable. He makes it simple for his opponents to understand and grasp what it means to be a man/ woman of faith.
Summary
It is unfortunate that those that were involved in the crossfire of theological argument were affected in one way or another. But theologians should be aware that these kinds of discussions are not removed in today’s church. Both Barth and Brunner had background
that informed them thus the result of what we have in the Natural Theology Book. Each and every person has a background that informs ones believe.
Finally, it is clear from Barth’s argument that he did not have any room for the natural theology in his framework of theology. For his reserving any room means allowing to be threatened by revelation of God in grace.
But this author would like to point out that it is easy for people to mis- interpret Barth on account that he rejected both natural revelation and general revelation. On the other hand Brunner objected that Barth’s exclusive emphasis upon Christ and the world denied the reality of God’s “general revelation” of himself in creation and especially human creatures, his image- bearers, something attested in scriptures.
Barth’s objected to Email Brunner objection and raised counter thesis, which later Barth rejected with a ‘NO!’ to Brunner’s challenge. Therefore the main ideas of these arguments are raised in this paper, and the focus on the underlying theological issue is the concern of the author.
Identifying Issue
Although both of them seem to be angry with each other, one would admire the way they refer to each other as “good friend” “ally” “appreciate him” “nothing against” “Sincerely respected” “extraordinary abilities” “walk together” However one can see bitter sides of both. Brunner asserts that he is not pleased with what Barth wrote about him. The positive side of this is where he says that he pockets it for he has other good things from Barth. Though he points out that he is doing this unwillingly. This encourages every theologian who read this so called Treatise. On the other hand Barth says that Brunner has crossed his path as an opponent of danger, and he feels challenged. When one readers this treatise, one can feel the pain of the two as they try to save their image of what they have said or written. Both seem to have great influence which is a fact i.e. “within a space of few years he completely changed the Protestant theological situation” and. “That I have heard the applause with which all who are of a like mind have greeted his essay.” Claims Barth.
As said earlier, is a collection of arguments of the 20th century which are well published. We see both theologians arguing and disagreeing over the point of contact for the gospel in the consciousness and natural man. Brunner’s argument is that the task of that generation lays on the efforts to find a way back to legitimate natural theology.
Barth makes a strong response and points out that there is no way to knowledge of God by way of human reason. Both Brunner and Barth had a strong Christocentric theology that there is no true knowledge of God, apart from through Jesus Christ. The Point of departure for these two theologians was the term “Natural theology”, Justification by faith, revelation and reason, Nature and Grace. The Book ‘natural theology’ points out that Brunner accuses Barth of his false conclusion of what he believed and what he has presented. Brunner actually calls Barth’s observation as heretical which he claims is the real danger to the church. (20 – 21). On the other hand Barth accuses Brunner of marking decision which is taking part in false movement of thought by which the church today is threatened.
In Brunner’s theology, there is grace in human’s nature and God’s creation. But in Barth theology, the concept of grace and nature were understood in two extremes that could not be placed together. Man was reconciled with God through Christ in grace only. In man’s nature one had done nothing that might be considered as synergism in grace. Barth seemingly followed the tradition reformed about understanding of grace. The risk of natural theology as the means of knowing God was that it included many pre- knowledge of God. Therefore, theologians might consider such knowledge adequate and does not expect revelation of God in grace. Thus it seems that natural theology rejected grace.
Brunner points out that Barth’s view as unbiblical, Thomastic and Catholic which he argues is against Reformation. In his effort to counter this he issued a counter theses which had scriptural proof, relation between dogma and reformation to Thomism and Neo Protestantism and finally the interest of theology and the church in rejection of the conclusions which Barth draws from his correct fundamental position. In response Barth points out that Brunner has already sent an alarm signal, and says that there was danger in Brunner’s essay about Nature and Grace. In his response Barth says that Brunner has proved that all that he seemed to have learnt has enabled him to return to the impetus of theology of compromise which has threatened the church. On the same breath Barth answers Brunner with a “No” for he believes that attempt to assert general theology has to be rejected. Barth made it clear to Brunner that there is no grace of creation and preservation.
In these arguments, Brunner does not blame Barth for neglecting and discrediting natural theology. He sees it as Barth’s special mission to serve at this point as a counter weight to dangerous aberrations. He (Brunner) asserts that a false natural theology did great damage to the Protestantism which threatens the church to a point of death. Page 59.1 Barth on the other hand points out that for Brunner to talk about natural theology he was starting a real theological problem, which he(Barth) says that it is a problem put to us by the truth presented in the scripture, creeds and confessions, that man is himself unable to fine access to the revelation of God.
Brunner and Barth put forward their points where they agree with one an other. i.e. Brunner agrees with Barth teaching of the original Image of God in Man which has been destroyed. Both seem to agree that the law of God is somehow also knowledge of God Pg 25. It is noticeable that a Barth point to Brunner that there is a difference in them in that they are faced with the question of what has to be done and how it has to be done.
However they disagree on other issues as discussed above, but they seem to do this with a lot of convincing efforts. See Barth’s rejection of Brunner’s theses judging it from the history of Dogma. When Brunner discussed “the other task of Theology” Barth points out that he knew that they were not in the same wave length = not one.
Barth made it clear that Christians believe is what must be confirmed as the content as object of faith and what has to be preached. He asserts that Faith is Trust which is God’s gift. In God alone is there faithfulness and faith is the trust to hold unto God. He further says that faith is concerned with a decision once and for all. Faith is not an opinion replaceable by another opinion. Faith is concern with God. Christian faith is an illumination of the reason in which man free to live in the truth of Jesus Christ. The creed of Christian faith rest upon knowledge. Knowledge of God takes place where there is actual experience that God speaks, that he also represents Himself to man. Christian knowledge means living in truth of Jesus Christ. In faith as confession -Christian faith is an event in the mystery between God and man. In other words it is man’s answer to historical existence and nature and action of God. Faith has to do with God. Faith is obedience, not just a passive accommodation of oneself. Therefore, if faith is real it must encroach upon one’s life. God is the Object of faith. He who is called God is not to be regarded as a continuation and enrichment of the concepts and ideas which constitute religious thought. God is not a particular instance within a class. God is in distinctive from all gods. God according to the scriptures live acts lives make himself know to us in the works of his love, resolved on and consummated in Jesus Christ. God is the Highest.
Karl Barth argues that the One God, God in the highest, the Only God is the Father, he is also the Son and he is the Holy Spirit. Three times the One and the Same, threefold, but above all the triune, he, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in himself and in the
highest and in his revelation. God is Almighty, which means that he is might. He is almightiness. (46 – 47) He is the creator, he creates sustains and he rules as the theater of His Glory. All things were brought to being through him, see “Let here be…” Genesis 1:1-24. About Heaven and earth Barth says that God is the creature on the boundary between heavens and earth. The boundary of our conceiving is not the boundary that separates us from God, but sorely that boundary which according to Barth the creed calls boundary between heaven and earth. About Jesus Christ the Barth points out that he is the way the truth and the life of men. God is the Alpha and the omega. The name Jesus and the Title Christ express the election, the person, and the work of the Man in whom the prophetic, priestly and kingly mission of the nation of Israel is revealed and set forth.
God’s revelation in the man Christ Jesus is compelling and excusive and God’s work in him is helpful and adequate for he himself is living through Himself (God living through Jesus) = the pronunciation of the truth Deity of Jesus. Therefore his existence is the virtual of his divinity who is our Lord and savior. He is the decision of God’s purpose and what God’s goal is not just for him but for every man
The Barth makes a theological statement by observing that in resurrection Jesus is once for all exalted and appointed to discover with God his right against all his foes. And so the end of his work is also the beginning of the end time that is of the time in which the church has proclaimed to the entire world the gracious omnipotence and the omnipotent grace of God. His grace and kingdom as the measure by which the whole humanity and every single human existence is measured. And the creed comes to an end by affirming believe in the Holy Ghost. The he points this to hope for the best of all, and this hope is a gift of God. As observed earlier in this summary this book is worthy reading for it makes one understand the purpose of the creed.
On several occasions the Barth refers to what the philosophers have defined God, meaning that he has a different definition of who God is. Where he is referring to God as the nature of different being. This is a philosophical idea. However he argues that the bible is not a philosophical book, and theologians would agree with him. Barth talks about God having almightiness, he further says that he himself is everything and he has the possibility. Philosophers describe God as the Supreme Being. He is describing the same but using different words; however he is quick to point out that theologians can not look at the bible as a theological book. The general explanation that the Barth gives in terms of what Christian believes is something admirable. He makes it simple for his opponents to understand and grasp what it means to be a man/ woman of faith.
Summary
It is unfortunate that those that were involved in the crossfire of theological argument were affected in one way or another. But theologians should be aware that these kinds of discussions are not removed in today’s church. Both Barth and Brunner had background
that informed them thus the result of what we have in the Natural Theology Book. Each and every person has a background that informs ones believe.
Finally, it is clear from Barth’s argument that he did not have any room for the natural theology in his framework of theology. For his reserving any room means allowing to be threatened by revelation of God in grace.
But this author would like to point out that it is easy for people to mis- interpret Barth on account that he rejected both natural revelation and general revelation. On the other hand Brunner objected that Barth’s exclusive emphasis upon Christ and the world denied the reality of God’s “general revelation” of himself in creation and especially human creatures, his image- bearers, something attested in scriptures.