Transcript V. Pointed emphasis in Dialectic Theology: Karl Barth and

VI. Pointed emphasis in Dialectic
Theology:
Karl Barth and Emil Brunner
Karl Barth (1886-1968)
• Prof. in Göttingen (1921-25), Münster (1925-30)
Bonn (1930–1935). Since KB refused to swear
allegiance to Adolf Hitler, he had to leave Bonn’s
Uni; Prof. in Basel 1935-1962.
Dialectical theology. - The Epistle to the
Romans; Church Dogmatics – Kirchliche
Dogmatik
• Intention: Since the reference-object of religious
consciousness remains dependent on the
consciousness and since Christianity appears as
just one possibility of religion among other
beliefs, Barth distinguishes between religion/
culture at one side and Christianity on the other.
Römerbrief: God who is revealed in the cross of
Jesus, challenges and overthrows any attempt
to ally God with human cultures, achievements,
or possessions.
Barth: Unhappy Religion
• Religion pretends to resolve an unhappy
consciousness (cf. Ritschl: difficulty of
sensuality, Herrmann: failed morality,
Troeltsch: separation from God), but religion
itself is the unhappy consciousness.
KB perceives the critique of religion as
established by Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl
Marx who understand religion as unhappiness
and alienation from one’s self.
Ecumenical problem
• KB identifies religion as unbelief, attempt of selfsalvation, practical atheism.
• KB rejects natural religion and philosophical Theology
as well.
“I regard the doctrine of the analogy of being as the
invention of the Antichrist and hold that precisely
because of this doctrine one cannot become a Catholic.
At the same time, I believe that all other reasons that
one can have for not becoming a Catholic are
shortsighted and frivolous.” (Church Dogmatics I, viiiix).
• Consequences: “Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it
can only preach to it.” → self-evidence of the word.
Religion by Revelation
• KB declares revelation the exclusive basis of faith and
theology: revelation destroys religion reversing it in its
contradiction: it is not founded in human consciousness,
but in God’s self-communication.
• Human consciousness has to negate itself and find its
subsistence in Jesus’ obedience to God the Father. Like
Jesus’ human nature possesses no own human hypostasis
(subsistence, concrete existence), but like it exists in and by
the divine hypostasis, so neither Church nor Christian
consciousness exist by themselves: they live in Jesus Christ,
he is their subsistence, reality.
The subject of religion is God, never human consciousness.
God is by himself in Christian consciousness because it is
the consciousness of his Son. Christian consciousness
makes parte of God’s self-determination.
Hegel‘s heritage in KB:
God as trinitarian subjectivity
• Despite the critique of philosophical mediation of
faith and theology, KB uses Hegel‘s concept of
absolute subjectivity to explain how God can
create religion in human consciousness - so that
God refers to himself in religious consciousness:
Since God is self-reference in himself for the
otherness of the Son, by Trinitarian selfcommunication and -determination, he can as
well communicate himself to the external
otherness, he can refer to himself in human
consciousness.
Conclusion
KB affirms…
• with Kant: there are no proofs of God‘s existence, no natural religion, no phil.
Metaphysics
• against Kant: no dependence of religion on moral or other human needs
• against Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Herrmann, Troeltsch: human consciousness does not
justify religion, it rather reveals the unhappiness of religion.
• with Feuerbach and Marx: religion is the unhappy consciousness.
• against Feuerbach and Marx: a mere philosophical critique is not sufficient for
theology. The true critique of religion is made by God’s revelation.
• with Kant and against Hegel: unimportance of the history of religion(s)
• with Hegel: God as subjectivity found religious consciousness, there is no
„substantiality“ of this consciousness, it is accidental („acosmism“).
• against Hegel: no parallel approach from human consciousness to religion and to the
philosophical justification of religion.
• Falk Wagner (protestant theologian): Barth converts the unilaterality of a phil. of
religion which remains in human consciousness in the unilaterality of a theo-logy
“from above” which negates right and importance of human consciousness in matters
of faith.
• Systematic and ecumenical question concerning a philosophical mediation of the
claim of Christian faith (analogia entis, analogia fidei).
Emil Brunner (1889-1966)
• 1924-53 Prof. system. &
practical. Theology
University Zürich.
• 1924: Mysticism and the
Word, 1924: critique of the
liberal theology of
Friedrich Schleiermacher.
• 1927: The Philosophy of
Religion from the
Standpoint of Protestant
Theology
Philosophy and Theology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Philosophy of Religion - reason
Totality of sense
Reason
Religion as human activity
Historical appearances of
religions
Religion depends on “the Last”
which reason identifies.
The Last = some general
knowledge of God (not personal,
living)
Critique of superstition,
phantasmagoria… because not
corresponding to “the Last”.
Theology of Revelation - faith
•
•
•
•
Totality of sense
Revelation
Self-manifestation of God
Source of all appearance
• Revelation depends on God
identified by faith.
Two Philosophies of Religion
Philosophical Phil. of Religion
Theological Phil. of Religion
• It starts from the uniqueness of
• Tendency: it considers
Christian religion, from concrete to
Christianity as one case of
general. Concrete knowledge of
religion, from universal to
God by Christ, Christ is not a
concrete (Hegel,
symbol for something general, a
Schleiermacher)
religious idea.
• It defines the relation between
reason and revelation, and religion
and revelation.
• Renounce of an universal concept
of religion. “Es gibt kein
gemeinsames ‘Wesen der
Religion’.”
Two Philosophies of Religion
Philosophical Phil. of Religion
Theol. Phil. of Religion
• Limits in the personal
character of concrete
religion and of reality
(which, perhaps, is not only
objective).
• Reality, world understood
by analogia entis
• Reality in the light of
revelation
• Creation which transcends
analogia entis
Two Philosophies of Religion
Philosophical Phil. of Religion
Theological Phil. of Religion
• Man‘s inability to
understand himself
• Human person vacillates
between extremes:
skepticism and mysticism
• = point of contact of
theology
• It seeks for the formal
principles of revelation: it
speaks about the openness
of human being to
revelation, the question,
emergency of life, guiltiness
Two Philosophies of Religion
Philosophical Phil. of Religion
Theological Phil. of Religion
• History of religion:
consciousness of God and
original unity with God and
loss of God.
• Event of revelation
• Revelation as crisis,
judgment, and fulfillment of
religions
E. Brunner: Natur und Gnade.
Zum Gespräch mit Karl Barth (1934)
Summary of Barth‘s thesis:
1. Destruction of human nature by sin
2. No universal revelation in nature, conscience…
3. No points of contact of redemption in human nature
and misery.
4. Negation of: gratia non tollit sed perficit naturam, no
fulfillment of human nature, but its negation.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/109899/emil_brunne
r_and_karl_barth_lets_get_pg4.html?cat=34
E. Brunner’s approach
• 1. Despite sin, human beings remain formally the human image of God,
human person = subjectivity and responsibility (conscience) which remain
after sin.
Materially human nature is destroyed: man cannot realize his personality in
love and in unity with God. Man’s person is contradictory.
• Formal aspect as the „Anknüpfungspunkt“ of grace.
• Human capacity to know God, creation and traces of God in being and human
person, cf. Rm 1, 19-21: For what can be known about God is evident to them,
because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his
invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be
understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no
excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or
give him thanks; Rm 2, 14-15 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law
by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves
even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law
are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their
conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them - verses which Barth does
not discuss in his commentary of the letter to the Romains.
• There are two types of revelation: in creation and in history.
 There is a Biblical and theological basis and necessity of a philosophy of
religion
E. Brunner, Natur und Gnade
• 2. „Grace of conservation“ of the sinner:
God „makes his sun rise on the bad and the
good, and causes rain to fall on the just and
the unjust.” Mt 5,45
life, health, strength….= general grace: natural
gifts, talents, culture; social structures which
limit the consequences of sin: institutions like
state, marriage…
E. Brunner, Natur und Gnade
• 3. „points of contact“ of the grace of
redemption = formal imago Dei, humanitas,
capacity of the word (Wortmächtigkeit) as
responsiveness / addressability
(Ansprechbarkeit) by God‘s word. Grace does
not effect the Ansprechbarkeit, but
constitutes the capability to believe in God’s
word.
E. Brunner, Natur und Gnade:
imago Dei, analogy, natural theology
• E. Brunner demonstrates that Calvin and Luther do no
reject the idea of the natural imago Dei.
Calvin: Redemption = reparatio imaginis;
Luther: remains of the imago after sin.
• Barth uses analogy speaking about the subjectivity of God,
Father, Son and Spirit – therefore he cannot negate analogy.
• Analogia entis is nothing specifically catholic, it is the basis
of all theology, basis of God‘s revelation: God‘s word in
man‘s word.
• Natural theology is important for the dialogue with NonBelievers; it does not serve for proofs of God (= catholic
system), but for indications, suggestions. Natural theology
is important for Ethics, doctrine of state, theology.
Karl Barth‘s reaction
Nein. Antwort an Emil Brunner 1934
•
•
•
•
•
Thomism, neo-protestantism.
Destruction of any trace of the imago Dei by sin.
There is no general revelation.
There is no grace of creation nor of conservation.
There are no natural, human Anknüpfungspunkte
/ points of contact of revelation.
• The new creation in Christ is not the fulfillment of
the old creation, the new creation replaces the
old one.
Rejection of any natural theology / phil. of religion
• Barth argues against Brunner in order to reveal a contradiction in
his approach: between Brunner‘s affirmation of the redemption
„sola gratia“ and his idea of human conditions and dispositions
of saving revelation.
• Barth accepts that the sinner does not lose the humanum, he
does not change in a turtle. But was does it mean?
A man saves another who is going to drown – sure, the drowning
man is saved because he is a human person and not a block of
lead.
• But according to Barth this capacity to be saved by Christ is not a
„Offenbarungs- or Errettungsmächtigkeit“, not a positive or even
active dynamic towards revelation / redemption.
The German word “-mächtigkeit”, connotes “mächtig”, “Macht”
and “machen” mighty, powerful, to be able to, disposed to,
power, capability, strength, to do, to act. The words say in fact
more than a mere potentiality, conceivability (Denkbarkeit),
possibility.
The Knowledge of God through
Creation and Christ
• Barth focuses on the contradiction that, according to
Brunner, human being is blinded by sin, but there
would be „some“ knowledge of God through creation somehow „irgendwie“.
Brunner’s playing with the terms „perfect” and
“imperfect” knowledge of God would not convince.
Brunner says that through Christ we have a perfect
knowledge of God, through creation only an imperfect
knowledge which is available for the sinner.
Barth argues, since every knowledge of God is
imperfect, even the saving knowledge of God shares in
this imperfection, how is it possible to exclude then,
that the imperfect knowledge of God through creation
does not already redeem?
Christus solus, sola revelatione,
sola gratia, sola fide = no philosophy of religion
• In order to avoid any kind of human condition and
participation of revelation / redemption / justification,
any form of self-redemption, Barth excludes all human
orientation towards revelation – an orientation which
could be the theological justification of philosophical
argumentation that could be utilized to show to
everybody the human disposition for divine revelation
in human reality and history.
• A demonstration that faith in revelation corresponds to
human reality is only possible in theological terms.
• While Brunner spoke about two forms of a phil. of
religion, Barth negates possibility and sense of a
philosophy of religion.
Open questions
• It remains the question: given that there is
nothing in the human being making
understandable the redeeming revelation, and
given that any understanding and acceptance of
revelation in faith is an effect of the Holy Spirit‘s
grace,
how then is it possible to say that the human
subject understands revelation and comes to
belief? What does it mean that I believe?
• Barth‘s radical views motivated to further
reflections:
Erich Przywara S.J (1889-1972): Analogia entis –
a catholic response to Kant, Hegel and Barth
• Distinction between
two types of phil. of
rel.: affirmation of
God‘s transcendence
(Kant, dialectic
theology) or of the
immanence (Spinoza,
Schleiermacher).
Proposed that both
types have to be linked.
• God is “in-über”.
Analogia entis
• Lateran Council IV 1215: "inter creatorem et
creaturam non potest tanta similitudo notari,
quin inter eos maior sit dissimilitudo notanda.“
Between the Creator and the creature, however
great the similitude, without noting a greater
dissimilitude.
• Analogy of as a rhythm
• Ignatius of Loyola: Deus semper maior / ad
maiorem Dei gloriam. For the greater glory of
God.
Forms of Analogy
A:B≈C:D
• External analogy of proportionality (metaphor):
Achilles stands in the battle like a rock in the surge.
Internal Proportionality
• Mt 18:35
So will my heavenly Father do to you (a:b),
unless each of you forgives his brother from
his heart (c:d).
• Mt 6:12
and forgive us our debts (a:b),
as we forgive our debtors (c:d)
Attributionsanalogie
Eph 3,14s For this reason I kneel before the Father, path,r
from whom every patria, paternity /family / in heaven and on earth is named.
• Analogatum primarium = God the Father (esse per se subsistens, ens per
essentiam)
– ↓causality, participation ↓
Ratio analoga = paternity
(ratio essendi)
(Esse significat aliquid completum et simplex,
sed non subsistens (De pot. q. 1 a.1) = actus
essendi
– ↑analogous knowledge of God↑
(ratio cognoscendi)
• Analogatum secundarium = human Father, Family (finite being = esse per
participationem according to its essence / essentia ( ens = esse + essentia)
• Wisdom 13:5 For from the greatness and the beauty of created
things their original author, by analogy avnalo,gwj, is seen.
Erich Przywara
• Logic = univoque
• (This object is a car.)
infinitum
ens
finitum
• Not available Ideal of divine
knowledge; God‘s standpoint
(Cf. John Duns Scotus (+1308)
Ens = „cui non repugnat esse
(in effectu)“ - minimum
(Ord. IV d. 1 q.1 n. 8)
Thomas v. A.: De veritate: ens
sumitur ab actu essendi
• esse = actualitas - maximum
• Dialogic =
dia,
between:
destruction of the
common lo,goj
through:
getting through
a common
lo,goj: Hegel:
identity of
identity and nonidentity
ἀναλογία
Aristoteles, Metaphysik VII / Z:
To. o'n le,getai pollacw/j“ (Substanz: ens a se Akzidens: ens ab
alio)
Logic
Dialogic
ἀνά
– sequentially
– upwards
via eminentiae
not fixable, but a floating middle
• collecting predicates of an object towards a logos we
cannot fix
• congruence of concurrence and differentiation
Karl Barth – analogia entis
• Analogy only by God‘s graceful acting
 Analogia fidei
 Analogia relationis
• No analogia entis
• analogia entis as the basis of analogia fidei /
relationis?
Pro and con K. Barth
Pro Barth
•
•
•
•
•
•
Protestants
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: meeting with Barth in
Bonn; no metaphysical, religious, moral
approach to God; no analogia entis; God
deciphers reality and the human being.
Emil Brunner: phil. and theol. phil. of religion
• Rudolf Bultmann (phil. Vorverständnis of
being – therefore Barth‘s critique against
„Vorverständnis and Anthropology)
Eberhard Jüngel: no phil. Theol., analogy of
Advent: God coming to our language.
Ingolf Dalferth: justification, not subjectivity
as an approach to God.
Catholics
Bonaventura: phil . within theology
Hans Urs von Balthasar: no phil.
• Peter Knauer: no speculative approach to
God, the word gives reason to think.
• Joseph Ratzinger / P. Benedict XVI.: no
definitive phil. proofs, only considerations of
the faith‘s implications and conditions
Contra Barth
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Protestants
Wolfhart Pannenberg, phil. Concept of true infinitude.
Falk Wagner, phil. of the absolute as self-meditation which
refers to human conscience
Jan Rohls, theory of the absolute which starts from the
particularity of Christ.
Hermann Deuser: Phil of „life-stiles“ including religion.
Catholics
Thomas Aquins: quinque viae
Erich Przywara: analogia entis
Maurice Blondel: phil. of supernatural
Henri de Lubac : natural destination of human being to the
visio beatifica.
Bernhard Welte: God as the other „nothing“
Karl Rahner: phil. of rel. as explication of the human being as
a potential hearer of God‘s word in history
Jörg Splett: phil. of rel.: God as absolute sense
Karol Wojtyła / P. Johannes Paul II.: Christian phil. mediates
man‘ s divine vocation