Knowledge of God's existence - the Fall (Barth vs Brunner) Flashcards
Natural theology
Brunner - we can use the sensus divinitas and the conscience to know God
Barth - God is too “radically other” for reason - like pouring Niagara falls into a jug
Point of contact between God and humans
Brunner - humans recognise the point of contact with God and become aware of their sinfulness
Barth - human language is to describe human things, can never be used to describe God
Impact of the Fall
Brunner - it damaged people but not on the spiritual level - which means there is still a way to connect with God
Barth - human nature was so corrupted we can only know/interact with God by revelation
Impact of the Fall
Natural theology
Brunner - we can know God by the conscience and sensus divinitas
Barth - God is so “radically other” we cannot use reason to know God - like pouring Niagara falls into a jug
Brunner on natural theology
Cannot save people, can only create a discussion that points to God’s existence
Can help us be aware of God but there is a limit of what we can know
Barth on reason
We cannot trust our reason due to the Fall
We must not put reason above God
Barth on reason
We cannot trust our reason due to the Fall
Any attempt to use reason will lead to a misunderstanding of God - revelation is all we need
CP to Barth on reason
The Bible itself points people to natural theology (ie in Romans)
CP to Barth on reason
The Bible itself points people to natural theology (ie in Romans)
CP to Barth on reason
The Bible itself points people to natural theology (ie in Romans)
CP to Barth on reason
The Bible itself points people to natural theology (ie in Romans)
CP to Barth on reason
The Bible itself points people to natural theology (ie in Romans)
CP to Barth on reason
The Bible itself points people to natural theology (ie in Romans)
CP to Barth on reason
The Bible itself points people to natural theology (ie in Romans)
