Barth Brunner

Defining the gospel in an apriopri definition of the german people (and later leader) one god one
nation
Brunner: Image of god in man formal (reason/morals) and material (how man then acts)
Strengths of Brunner: points of contact general revelation, ordinances state and matrimony
vestiges of the imageo dei, preserving grace, blindness how can you have true knowledge of god
without salvific knowledge revelation implies success whereas for brunner
Continuity of the self, old and new
It is Christ centred
Barth: no point of contact in an a priori manner he cannot say this because he is then doing natural
theology! Not looking to hume
Simply there is no point of contact a posteriori when we look at the relationship: the point of
contact is the holy spirit
Revelation big mistake of theology is to take revelation
S1 rev S2 approp S3 (points of contact) cultural definition of revelation
God rev Bible/moral ideals approp AT moral ideals and guilt
Barth says this is not what happens in the Bible NO
Father rev. Son approp body of Christ by Spirit God reveals God by God
In Christian theology revelation god is the revealer/revelation/revealedness God is the condition
At (formal) appropriating god is synergistic, points of contact (vestibule define god reason by ideals
and will by moral ideals
Prolegomena is first then we define god by these work our way back to god there are no pres all is
post.
Metanoia and pronoia after and before thinking the metanoia is a response all theology is after
thinking nach denken translates metanoia.
A priori is defining the content of the house from the vestibule
1947 calvins doctrine of the knowledge of god 2 books (Dowie conserve Calvinist defending
brunner duplex cognition, creation/redemption and Parker barth did not teach a 2 fold knowledge
creation is a mirror of gods glory and humans cannot read these pointers to glory after fall the
mind is a factory of idols - Barth) published 13 years after natural theology was written by Brunner.
Because Brunner and Barth both wanted to claim the reformers then the war took place. God is
only known in his reconciling act we cannot fall back on principles of reason or morals tolead us to
god.
Dutch reformed in SA opted fro calvins 2 fold knowledge what can be determined by the light of
natural reason ordinances of the state and matrimony
NT bias? yes! And what about Romans 1
Separation of separation of church and state in America from natural theology creation and
redemption as 2 revelations
Luther 2 regiments
God was lord over church and state (creation)
but Christ (redemption) only over the church -
Barth there is only one Lord no separation and there is no general revelation to prop up the fuhrer
C. Villa Viccenao, John de Guuchy used Barth to defeat apartheid
Polarisation of church and state
Bottom line for barth is obedience or reverence if we want to understand the vacuum we need to
look at gods revel in JC, we cannot determine the nature of the vacuum that needs to be filled until
looking back through Christ
Beginning or end of theology is interpreting the old in the light of the new we look back, to
understand not forwardwe control what the gospel means for us otherwise
When we decide how we are fallen we create the god to save ourselves, idloatory create our
own religion.
When we start at ourselves and walk back to god even with scripture we define god in our own
image
We look at ourselves what we need the vacuum then decide how to fuill it what that god looks
like start with the imageo dei
Who god is then us not our prior analysis and what we need idolatory

The problem of Religion and theology
Romans 1: After jesus we can look back who wrote rom 1 Paul or Saul? And understand but only in
light of the revelation of Jesus
Retrospectively we can make these claims why does DC not use Barths argument instaed of
prosopia


CDogs Abolition of religion
Abolition and the redemption of religion at the same time word can have the same meaning in
German auf 3 senses
the revelation of god is actually the presence of God and therefore the hiddenness(veiledness) of
god in the world of human religion the divine particular is revealed in a human universal p282
God reveals god in an act of veiling in human form otherwise we couldnt appropriate him so his
unveiling is a veiling (Dog 1.1 $17)
The revelation of God has to be in a human context (church?)
We lost revelation in the very fact that we could conceive of The real catastrophe is theology lost its
object see dogmatics
P294-297
299 tolerance
P68 of brunner - antichrist Hirsch heresyfacsim claimed god and therefore was antichrist he saw
in bruneer exactlty the same thing
Althaus/ Elert a repudiation of the bramner dec that there is no Lord other than JC on both right and
left a uniting round the common theme of natural theology
Analogy entis we attach papl fallibility to our own worldviews in DOG 9 divine simplicity is from
how god discloses this and not a predisposed concept that god has to be fitted into what peter
does with messiah concept and is demonic when we reverse the direction of revelation
Jesus is lord DOG in a nutshell over all aspects of life christomonism?