Natural Theology: Comprising Nature & Grace by Professor Dr Emil Brunner & the Reply No! by Dr Karl Barth

by Emil Brunner

Book annotation not available for this title.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Christian, Religion

128 pages, Paperback

First published December 31, 2002

About the author

Heinrich Emil Brunner was a Protestant theologian and Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at the University of Zurich.

Reviews

[Jon Coutts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this again today and was reminded of my desire to commission our university's theatre department to perform a dramatic reading of Barth's "Angry Introduction". Maybe I'll just do it myself next time I see a lectern in the atrium.

[Kara Slade · Rating 5 out of 5]

In haiku form:

No! Emil Brunner!
Natural theology -
useful for Nazis.

[Corey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Endless thinking about this book. I find both sides to have compelling points. This is a debate that I’ll be thinking about likely for the rest of my life. I’d love to see two people who hold these positions revisit this debate today with increased clarity.

[Avyi Hill]

Just fantastic. Barth writes his response to Brunner just two months before giving four lectures on Luke 1 in December 1934. Echoes of Mary and CD I/2 are all over this!

“Man is a being that has to be overcome by the Word and the Spirit of God, that has to be reconciled to God, justified and sanctified, comforted and ruled and finally saved by God. Is that not enough? Is not every addition to that really a subtraction from it?
…
Would not theology and the Church dishonor man if they addressed him, not because he has been addressed but because he can be addressed? By so doing they would question or even deny the one all-important positive good thing that can be said about him.”

(Also tbh I don’t understand why people feel Barth and Brunner are shooting past each other… one of them understands the other just fine and one of them is just wrong 👀)

[Stephen Bedard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a famous debate between two very important theologians of the 20th century. The question is about the value of natural theology. Both were against it but Brunner was a bit more open. Barth gets very aggressive with his attacks on Brunner. I disagree with both and definitely see a role for natural theology.

[Dougald · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read given our current cultural climate. This book contains both Emil Brunner's and Karl Barth's essay, written in conversation with one another, on Natural Theology an its importance in Evangelical Theology (don't think of current usage for the word Evangelical). Brunner says that humanity, as part of the imago dei, has the capacity to receive revelation. Barth says, "Nein!" this is a great discussion to iron out what you think about natural theology and its role in the church. Both Brunner and Barth, I believe, go to extremes in their approaches, misreading one another at times, and offering valuable critiques. Barth seeks to show the power of the word of God and justification by faith as the determining factor for revelation. Brunner, seeks to show correspondence between natural theology/revelation and divine revelation in scripture. You can see why this is such an interesting discussion for our particular cultural moment. Though, I think it is funny that some people in our current discussion would chaff at the fact that they are being Barthian in their approach.

[Jennifer Cornelius · Rating 3 out of 5]

While there is much worthwhile discussion in these pages, after reading this exchange between Brunner and Barth I find myself extremely grateful to be living in the 21st century when technology makes it much easier to converse synchronously and get on the same page than it was for these two men who each seem to wildly misread the other’s foundational concerns.

[Neal Spadafora · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though this theological conversation is classic for many tenable reasons, the two essays lack nuance and articulation. Most readers agree that in "Natural Theology" Brunner and Barth are not at their best; nonetheless, it is still a necessary read in the history of theology.

[David Haines · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is composed of the article "Nature and Grace" by Dr. Emil Brunner, and the article that Karl Barth wrote in response, "No!". Both articles discuss the possibility of Natural Theology. The two articles are introduced by Dr. John Baillie. This book will be of interest to anyone who like Karl Barth, or who is interested in Natural Theology. One should read the book "Biblical Faith and Natural Theology" by James Barr not long after reading this book, as James Barr give some very interesting comments concerning Barth's response to Brunner. One thing that will be notice almost immediately is that Brunner's article is filled with endnotes, whereas Barth's contains only a few references that are included, in parentheses, in the text itself. Brunner gives a detailed explanation of his view on Natural Theology over against his understanding of Barth's view on Natural Theology and the reasons why Barth rejects it. Whether or not Brunner's critiques of Barth are just, his exposition of his own view is most interesting, as well as his interpretation of Calvin and Luther on Natural Theology. Barth's response to Brunner is almost entirely rhetorical. He seems to deny that Brunner has sufficiently explained his views, not because Barth doesn't hold those views, but because, even though he holds those views, he can't hold them as being against Natural Theology due to the fact that Natural Theology is a non-existent, non-possible, endeavour (128 page book on nothing apparently!). Barth also contests Brunner's interpretation of Calvin (though he claims he is not well acquainted with Calvin), and contests Brunner's claims concerning the use of Natural Theology for the church. On almost every point that Brunner brings Barth attempts to negate it. His most accurate response to Brunner is when he corrects Brunner on the Thomistic doctrine of nature and grace. All in all this book is an enjoyable and interesting read. Though Barth is interesting and inspiring one wishes that he would have given arguments rather than unsupported rhetorical and dogmatic remarks. Having these two articles in one volume is absolutely wonderful.

[Lori · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karl Barth is the monolith of 20th century theological writing. If you tiptoe around him instead of plunging through, you cannot grasp his importance to the development of the Church in the past 100 years, especially in Europe. At a time when complete secular Enlightenment thinking had gutted theological study in Europe, Barth found himself back at the beginning - reading the Bible and wrestling with what it said.

Barth developed many important themes during his lifetime of writing, but it's hard to find one as clear as his absolute rejection of the idea that mankind can discover any truth about God and His ways outside the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, as witnessed to in the Scriptures. This stands in sharp contrast to the Continental liberal theologians, and even to many who would have been sympathetic to Barth's views otherwise.

Emil Brunner is often lumped into a category with Barth as "the neo-Orthodox," but that's an inaccurate categorization on many levels. This little book comprises two essays, one by Brunner explaining his belief that the image of God in man leaves him capable of responding to revelation, leaving open a door for natural theology or revelation from nature to draw a man toward Grace.

Barth's response essay is titled emphatically "NO!" (That cracks me up.) Barth was horrified at the idea that anyone would see in fallen humanity the ability to "connect with" a perfect and transcendent God. Further, Barth was writing his response in the 1930s, I think, when he could see so clearly the horrors that the Nazis would soon wreak upon Europe. Nazi dogma was firmly grounded in "religion" and "natural theology." To Barth, this was just fuel for the heresy.

This debate resonates strongly into the 21st century and touches everything from how we couch the message of the Gospel to where we seek answers to some of our deepest questions about humanity. I highly recommend reading this little volume and really chewing on the ideas presented by both men.

[Owen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great quick read (if there is such thing as a theology book to read quickly!) that sheds some light on some of the history behind Neo-Orthodoxy. Brunner makes a case with the Neo-Orthodox camp for a natural theology, with the appropriate hedges to prevent against natural theology being turned into pagan religion. Barth, on the other hand, adds relatively little substance to the discussion, but persists in quick hits and attacks that are not very well developed responses. If one were to say that Brunner was using a scalpel on Barth's theology, Barth is using a machine gun towards Brunner's response.

When I finished reading, I left coming away with the feeling that Barth's prowess has been vastly overestimated; he is capable of building an internally coherent system of thought centered around a central premise ("God is wholly other") but he is not as capable of dealing with a fine-tuned critique. Barth's character is somewhat revealed; and while wanting to avoid an ad hominem rejection of Barth, I am left to wonder whether Brunner, despite some mistakes, has more claim to understanding due to his more refined approach.

Disclaimer: Coming from the Wesleyan theological tradition, I have much more natural affinity for Brunner than Barth on the issue of natural theology (mainly due to the concept of prevenient grace, which has a corollary preserving grace in Brunner's argument). So my opinion of Barth's response may be shaped by that, but I also used to be a big fan of Barth's theology.

[David Choi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Does theologia naturalis have a role within theology and the church? Brunner says yes; Barth says no. This momentous debate has raised new questions for subsequent philosophers and theologians. What is the role of grace in Christian ethics? What is the nature of Christian ethics? How are we to approach discussion of human capacity for revelation? Is there a 'point of contact' between divinity and humanity apart from Jesus Christ? How do we theologically assess the degree to which sin has tainted human reason?

[Zack Hudson · Rating 4 out of 5]

(read for class) Quite a good theological discourse preserved in this little book. Barth and Brunner both have their weak points. Brunner tragically misread Calvin, Barth doesn't quite seem to understand what Brunner means by 'capacity for revelation'. I find myself siding with Barth, partially because I'm afraid to disagree with him.

11/28/2022: After a bit more research and a lot of Calvin, I’m firmly pro-Barth. Brunner’s reading of Calvin is horribly lazy.

[J.I. · Rating 3 out of 5]

While, besides reading the entire Barth response (which was my main aim), I read only the introduction by Brunner, it became immediately clear that the latter writes with more clarity and constraint. His so-called misrepresentation of Barth's theology is negligible compared to the vicious and discombobulated counter-attack by Barth. Barth seems to fall for the tyranny of the "either or or." Sounds like my preference for natural theology is moderately affirmed.

[Tylor Lovins · Rating 3 out of 5]

This little book really sets up the two theology camps on revelation. It answers, with Emil Brunner to the positive: Is there any connection or "point of contact" between God and man? Karl Barth's polemic at the end isn't very helpful and seems intentionally obscure, as he seems to misread Brunner's argument on purpose. Highly recommend.

[Mitch Mallary · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book will serve as an important introduction to the Christological and dialectical debates of the 1930s. In particular, one will notice the vehemence of Barth's rejection of natural theology with the rising cultural acceptance of the Reich government by the German Christians.

Must read for anyone interested in studying the early Barth.

[Michael Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting, this book must be read with considerable background of both contributors.