1. VI. Pointed emphasis in Dialectic Theology: Karl Barth and Emil Brunner

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Ecumenical problem KB identifies religion as unbelief, attempt of self- salvation, 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, viii- ix). Consequences: “Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it.” → self-evidence of the word.

5. 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.

6. 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 self- communication and -determination, he can as well communicate himself to the external otherness, he can refer to himself in human consciousness.

7. 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).

8. 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

9. 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.

10. Two Philosophies of Religion Philosophical Phil. of Religion Tendency: it considers Christianity as one case of religion, from universal to concrete (Hegel, Schleiermacher) Theological Phil. of Religion It starts from the uniqueness of Christian religion, from concrete to general. Concrete knowledge of God by Christ, Christ is not a symbol for something general, a 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’.”

11. Two Philosophies of Religion Philosophical 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 Theol. Phil. of Religion Reality in the light of revelation Creation which transcends analogia entis

12. Two Philosophies of Religion Philosophical Phil. of Religion Man‘s inability to understand himself Human person vacillates between extremes: skepticism and mysticism Theological Phil. of Religion = 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

13. Two Philosophies of Religion Philosophical Phil. of Religion History of religion: consciousness of God and original unity with God and loss of God. Theological Phil. of Religion Event of revelation Revelation as crisis, judgment, and fulfillment of religions

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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…

18. 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.

19. 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 Non- Believers; it does not serve for proofs of God (= catholic system), but for indications, suggestions. Natural theology is important for Ethics, doctrine of state, theology.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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?

24. 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.

25. 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:

26. 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”.

27. 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.

28. Forms of Analogy A : B ≈ C : D External analogy of proportionality (metaphor): Achilles stands in the battle like a rock in the surge.

29. 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)

30. 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 essendi) Ratio analoga = paternity (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.

31. 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 = between: destruction of the common lo,goj dia, through: getting through a common lo,goj : Hegel: identity of identity and non- identity

32. ἀναλογία Aristoteles, Metaphysik VII / Z: To. o'n le,getai pollacw/j “ (Substanz: ens a se Akzidens: ens ab alio) LogicDialogic 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

33. 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?

34. 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