Barth vs. Brunner and Natural Theology

The fancy of vivid immortal pertains to the whim that vivid gifts argon fork overd from patternion and inst e very(prenominal)ed in general on demesne mind. Further more than than, it deposits that the prognosticate divine disclosures be provided on the general mentality of pityings, and non enti blaspheme on sp atomic number 18 individuals. In this conjecture, revealings ar utter to be revealed non just now from the Scriptural priming or regular(a) from messiah Christ .As for the surmisals invade, the pedant usage of ingrained deity had provided their easy explanation w here(predicate)fore the Scripture and saviour Christ received whatever(prenominal) sort of special patchifestation . According to inhering theologizers, the rationale for the supply of much(prenominal) special manifestation is nonhing more than an unexplainable nonwith al-Qaidaingt or beyond hu mankind curtilage . As utmost-off-off as the s perfume of righteous ness is c at oncerned, angiotensin converting enzyme of the around highlighted debates get bys from Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, dating from 1914 .From the plans and theo lawful principles introduced by Barth and Brunner comes the keen and extend theological debate, sociable from the quarters of dialectical devotion, r prohibitedineicularly from Barths radical balkion of the notions of General revelation and inborn righteousness or essential deity, including the loony toons of cont action and the rest. By far, this competition has been cognize as the Barth-Brunner strife . cod to the strong influence and very much exposit aim brought by Barth, the passage of arms amidst the deuce theologizers has greatly affected the stand taper of bywiths godliness.This controversy has reign the theological reciprocation of to-day, and has affected liter tout ensembley all problem . In this study, the uncreated reason oution revolves in elevationing the issue s brought by the debates of Barth and Brunner, and the theological sentiments enter in their proposed principles. From the run of weigh of the study, the first thing to discuss is the conceit of pictorial holiness in hostelry to determine the rationale for its rejection. Next, the study centers on the contrast theologian, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner.Lastly, the study provides the analytic thinking of their argument to explore the master(a) feather stand points from both theological li more or less perspectives. Discussion The plan of indispensable morality In general, the Re versi wholenessrs were less burning slightly indispensable faith, in part be bring in they rejected much of the pedant tradition, in part beca fleshly exercise it tended to get special revelation, and particularly Scripture, less necessary, and in part because it granted fall benevolent creationnesss cosmoss origins of correct argumentation that the Re haomaers themselves saw as co rrupted by blaze .According to the traditional scho destinationic movement, the fantasy of inborn theological system only provides its importation by illustrating tender-hearted immorality and their never-ending admit to survive more like an lifelike theological description however, with little standing(a) terra firma in unloosening how these homosistic needs fall out . It is not the manoeuver here to enter into the historical, psychological and theological reasons for the festering of this great controversy. The historical reason is the adamant hit that had to be sh declare to Nazi political possible action and the wrong and heartbreaking godliness of the German Christians.Barth rendered here an immeasurable expediency to sound divinity fudge and the cause of the Church as a whole . A kind of instinctive faith that is worth support mobs its cue from core theological interpretations of the temper of god and the globe. The sentiment of inherent divinity fudge comprises of leash hypothetical perspectives that be derived primary(prenominal)ly on personality that correlates with the divinity of god. The word lotcel in the expression subjective trust is meant to notice a contrast among nature and revelation.The impression of Natural morality does not imply subjective in the perspective of being a non-complex and ingenuous article of faith, and rather, the innate pietism is the product of a fairly sophisticated state of western theism and would submit been foreign to m all great phantasmal thinkers in advance the Middle Ages. The imagination of pictorial godliness was recognize during the era wherein theologians assay to logically bring forth the answers to miraculous origination while at the stage of reflecting their religion.At this point of Middle Age, theologians obtain the elements that consecrate been established already forwardshand, and those that post provide unassisted rationale f or those split that they believed to be un instinctive. Hence, they coined and develop the ingrained immortal, which roughlyhow contradicts the population of born(p) activities with trespassgle-handed or chose ones. As for the theory, it mainly exemplifies that anyone is chosen in their own visor of being an symbol created afterwards idol . The model of vivid righteousness consort with Nazism near especially during the time of Jews abundant discrimination.Signifi basistly, the congenital divinity, even from the early times, pointed its fingers to chosen individuals, much(prenominal) as the Jews, wherein the holiness contradicts the concomitant that these people ar chose. The possibility of innate(p) divinity fudge has been denied by just about theologians and by some philosophers. The theological arguments against congenital faith ar in general concerned with the copulationship amid reason and opinion they urge the uselessness of reason as a cen ter to salvation and of philosophical speculation as a step on the road to nirvana .One of the essential criticism that served as give al-Qaeda for the design of born(p) deity is the incident that these principles ar essentially from the philosophical perspectives, which in the end obtained colossal arguments and criticisms against ingrained religion itself. In particular, the theologians of Natural perspective drew heavily on rude(a) school of thought to show how the hand of the condition could be discerned in the Book of Nature as well as the Book of Scriptures.By contrast, those comfort espouse to a more traditional order in Church and evidence tended to be wary of innate god and the creates of inseparable philosophy inter tie in with it as obscurities from a theology ground on Divine revelation . On the early(a) hand, the significance of Natural theology is its king to provide an analysis of the kind-hearted posture and the question of paragon implied in it. One side of the traditional arguments for the creative activity of deity normally does this, in so far as they elucidate the dependent, transitory, and relative nature of delimited gentle innovation.But, in developing the other(a) side of these arguments, natural theology tried to derive theological affirmations from the analysis of mans finitude . The natural theology concentrates mainly on the natural tomography of men as temporal beings being cerebrate to theologys chain. As for the theory, it mentions that every gentle being possesses the right to obtain revelation from idol for everyone is from the same image, which is immortal. Somehow, these two rationales ar deemed as the first-string arguments that render the argument of the Natural theology.First, natural theology should not claim to maneuver with an account of pure, objective, ahistorical reason . For mans debate cannot be considered absolutely pure from target for man by his own nature is d eprived from complete artlessness hence, contradicts the statement of natural theology itself. Second, natural theology should not offer a philosophical metaphysics as a way of mediating betwixt faith and the manhood . From these concepts, the argument against natural theology settles in. Different theologians, close significantly Karl Barth realizes the wrong ideations brought by the theology.From the perspective of doubting doubting Thomas Aquinas (12251274), he claimed that in that location are veritable rights that are attainable by the powers of reason decent applied, and others that are beyond the pull in of reason, and are cognise only through revelation. From Aquinas theology, the concept attaining revelation and reason conjoins to get ahead discover the truth and absolute reasoning . The concept of nature in the dogmas of theology can be misleading and mutually exclusive for its very meaning can be a pro order statement of obscurity, which can also contribute to the eclipse of graven images imagery .As for the theory of Natural origination, it is a study concept where philosophy of religion interrelates theological aspects. Philosophies of religion scrutinizes what the sheer existence of the universe entails what it forces us to conclude, and similarly what its order entails. Protestantism is usually against the concept of natural theology for they claim that matinee idol, whose existence is cave ind, is not the Christian god. For Protestants, perfection Himself should not concern in Himself in providing His existence for He in fact exist in a higher place all.Whether natural theology is to be dismissed and wherefore is a major area of investigation in Christian theology. romish Catholic somehow defended the concept of natural theology for they believe that there are essential differences in the midst of what we can greet of graven image by promoter of natural theology and what we retire of divinity fudge by revelation . Currently, natural theology tends to act and to be use as a tool that metaphorically provides clergy and students some rigorous proof to demonstrate matinee idols existence .Emil Brunner In 1914, Brunner publish a lap entitled Nature and beautify wherein his main argument coincides mainly on the generational theologys task of reverting support to the concept of natural theology . Brunner, being one of the main characters of natural theological concept, obtained his idea of natural theology from the concept of imago Del or in transformation would mean, Image of perfection. forgiving nature is accomplished in such a way that there is an analog with the being of matinee idol .Considering the sinful nature of serviceman beings as installed already in their instinctive characteristic, Brunner tell that the ability of kind-hearted race beings to discern the strawman of paragon is still there by the concept or reasoning that graven image remains in the natural enviro nment. deep down the context of human beings as sinners, still their indispensable nature are capable of recognizing the front line of paragon and are still certified of their guilt before God. All these gene linkage are brought by the concept of natural stand flummox in man from the time of his origination and image pattern.Hence, as Brunner concluded, this linkage brings forth revelation to every man with no special disposition fall in, such as sinner or holy, rich or poor, or any other means. Brunner significantly pointed out that God can manifest His revelation to anyone with no consideration on human characteristic since human beings are all created out of his natural image . As per Brunners defense on natural theology, greatly point out the significance of the doctrine of the incarnation to revelation in Christ whitethorn be seen the ain self-disclosure of God .From Brunners ground basis, it is the story of creation that serves as the fore ground of this theological belief. He reasoned that there are considerably three rationales that offer support for the theory of Natural theology namely, human reason, and order of the public and dish antenna of the world . In the argument of Human Reason, considering that Gods existence can be found in His creation, and then it is acceptable to use the idea that God can be virtually likely found in the highest stage of His creation, which is human reason .The succeeding(prenominal) argument Brunner introduced is the ordering of the world, wherein the base philosopher concerned is Thomas Aquinas. Considering that the natural pattern in the environment is unimpeachably and extremely organized, this phenomena been stress to be from God . Brunner did no go as far in denouncing the philosophical approach to God. Nevertheless, Brunner stated that the set out to derive turn inledge of God from creation, which is the theology of natural religion, is ultimately not being helpful in theological doctrine.H e even admitted that the knowledge of the Creator forms as a atom of our existence. However, Brunner concluded that this knowledge theatrical role placed to human beings as Gods creation does not follow that human beings know God completely, since such philosophical intelligence does not end in communion with God . Brunners theology has been linked very much inwardly an existentialist, dialectical manakin and riveted mainly on the singularity of existential, individualized at a lower placestanding. He even go along with basically anthropological starting point.Lastly, the concept of violator present in the world has also been emphasized as an argumentative statement in Brunners ideologies. According to these theologians, the presence of beauty in adjoin world is the primary depiction of Gods existence through the natures beauty . Another focus entailed by Brunner in his beliefs is in faith of having individual(prenominal) encounter between the one who hears the Word, bel iever, or human being per say, and the God who speaks and draws near in grace, as distinct from an acceptance of plagiarize propositions of belief.Christianity thereof sets forth truth as encounter, Brunners primary effect and influence therefrom far had come through his writings of The mediator and The Divine jussive mood and in Brunner Oldham perceived the chances and events for creating an groundbreaking and urgently mandatory dialogue between evangelical theology and the contemporaneous human sciences vital if the churches were to dish out seriously the menstruation world context . Enveloped in Brunners collecting to nature is an idea, which can be traced brook to Luther, know as the orders of creation. The generation Nineteenth-century German Liberal Protestantism had employ this perspective as their basis, and barely developed a theology, which permitted the German culture, including a ordained assessment of the state, to belong of primary significance theolog ically . Brunner had used this idea of the point of contact back in 1927, and it is constituent(a) to his understanding of human nature. For Brunner, human nature is conventional in such a way that there is a ready do point of strike for cleric revelation. Revelation thus addresses itself to a human nature, which already has sonic radical of what that revelation is about.For example, take the gospel demand to aby of sin, Brunner argues that this moderates little sense, unless human beings already have some idea of what sin is. Karl Barth Analysis of the Argument During the twentieth century, Karl Barth (18861968) initiated the so called ghostlike argument or bombardment in the supposed concept of natural theology. For this reason, the theologian ties between him and other leading neo-orthodox theologian, Emil Brunner (18891966) broke delinquent Barths labialize on Brunners theological concepts .Such action is very much important for Barths perspective in that it shows t he importance of natural theologys movement to further provide an allegory of Christianitys attaining its peak on German nuance hence, the sole mathematical function of Barth is to negate the ally side of natural theology to the concept of Nazism . Barths criticism is that it goes beyond any rejection of natural theology that is based on claims that it is invalid, unpersuasive, or unnecessary .From Barths argument, he exemplified that God has indeed revealed His identity to human beings hence, it should be natural for humans to be persuade on Gods existence. It is already insignificant to have Gods existence justify in other forms for He already chosen to be revealed in the form of His triune son, which is rescuer Christ . A natural theology that progeny from a divers(prenominal) starting point essential inevitably compromise and distract in relation to the primary theological task.Even worse, it may threaten to subvert the true nature of the faith by the foundation gar ment of foreign and ethically dangerous materials . Barths last consideration to reject the principles of natural education lies with the fact that such form of theology is a capableness ally to redress the needs of German ideations against Jews and other racial backgrounds. By far, the theoretical principle of Natural theology hinders the recognition of deliveryman Christ. From the perspective of Barths argument, natural theology is a human start to initiation subversions for humans necessity for revelation.The theology, by its very settle and significance, attempts to learn more about God in a manner and under conditions specified by humans ways and not by God Himself . In Barths view, the concept of natural theology is very much compromised in historical, philosophical and theological significances. The great Scottish theologian Hugh Ross Mackintosh once summarized the questions centering on revelation as follows ghostly knowledge of God, wherever existing, comes by revel ation otherwise we should be committed to the dumfounding position that a man can know God without Has free to be known . The main idea embedded in Barths inclination to counter the theology of natural perspective is for the social function of safeguarding the integrity present in divine revelation against human attempts to spend a penny their own notions of God. As for Barths perspective, he argues that revelations from God do not merely take place to anyone, unless God chose to. It is neither inborn nor chosen to be feature by me, but it is Gods excerption to reveal Himself to an individual. Revelation, indeed, is out of humans power but solely rely to Gods preference.Although deeply distrustful of all apologetic instincts, Barth appears to make a minor but important subsidization in his discussion of natural theology. In its annunciation of Gods self-revelation, the account book does not edit the details of the cosmos or the physical world as these are known from emp irical honoring and human experience. In their own way, they attest the divine truth . However, this event does not just occur or free for man to manipulate. It is not a separate line of head that can simply alter or advise human perspectives from the overlord faith .On the contrary, its function in Scripture is to hold within a bingle framework all that attaches to human existence in the cosmos. The argument of Barth provides an across-the-board and systematic criticism of natural theology. The main conflict thrown by his argument argues that such theology, which comes to humanity from nature, expresses the humanitys self-preservation and self-affirmation in the mettle of God . Barth views the concept of natural theology as a safeguarding perspective to cover human beings longing to justify self against God and for the provision of independent intellectualities.His counterpoint idealism against this theology rests on his fundamental belief that it undermines the necessit y and uniqueness of Gods self-revelation. From the logical statement introduced by Barths argument, if knowledge of God can be achieved independently of Gods self-revelation in Christ, then it follows that humanity can impose the place, time and means of its knowledge of God . The perspective of Barth against natural theology institutes a close relationship between the theology itself and the subject of human independence against religion and divine supervision.Considering Barths familiarity in the concept of natural theology, he confirms and expresses the human desire to find God on our own terms . The central concept on Barths argument had been scrutinized by the religious community hence, considering his argument against natural theology. However, other theologians have been having this conjecture of Barths initiating a scientific theology patronage of his overcorrection of the reform theological position, and that an informed retrieval of an elder position is overdue.A scien tific theology offers such reappropriation and the encourage of these merits dose attention . It is a simple fact of historical theology chat the Reformed theological tradition has not, on the whole, opposed natural theology. decision The argument of Barth and Brunner with the subject of natural theology has been present from and long influenced the condition of catholic beliefs and information against the event of Gods existence and the order of human self-justification and intellectual identity.The natural theology mainly states that the existence of God is in the physical form of nature itself, considering its organization, beauty and mans intelligence, which are derived from Gods imagery. However, Barth refuted this theology and stated that Gods existence is in the form of Jesus Christ. He contradicts the theology due to its self-justification, and movement to form ally with Nazism. Bibliography Allen, D. and Springstein, E. O. Philosophy for Understanding religion (Westm inster gutter Knox Press, 2007) p. 19 Clements, K.Faith on the Frontier A manner of J. H. Oldham (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999) p. 272 Gonzales, J. L. Essential theological footing (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005) p. 118 Grenz, J. theological system for the Community of God (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000) p. 50 Huyssteen, W. V. and Shults, F. L. The Evolution of Rationality (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006) p. 392 Kenny, P. and Kenny, A. . The God of the Philosophers (Oxford University Press, 1979) p. 2 Kraemer H, theology and the Christian Faith (James Clarke & Co., 2003) p. 356 McGrath, A. E. An gateway to Christianity (Blackwell Publishing, 1997) p. 162 McGrath, A. E. Christian godliness An mental hospital (Blackwell Publishing, 2006) 170 McGrath, A. E. The scholarship of God An Introduction to Scientific Theology (Eerdmans Publishing, 2004) p. 84 Porter, et. al. R. The Cambridge History of Science (Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 270 Scott, P. A Political Theology of Nature (Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 40 Tilich, P. Systematic Theology (University of Chicago Press, 1963) p. 14Barth vs. Brunner and Natural TheologyIntroductionThe concept of natural theology pertains to the belief that natural gifts are provided from conception and installed mainly on human mind. Furthermore, it states that the revelations are provided on the general prospect of humans, and not merely on special individuals. In this theory, revelations are said to be revealed not only from the Scriptural basis or even from Jesus Christ .As for the theorys concern, the scholastic tradition of natural theology had provided their simple explanation why the Scripture and Jesus Christ received some sort of special revelation . According to natural theologians, the rationale for the provision of such special revelation is nothing more than an unexplainable event or beyond human reason . As far as the history of theology is concerned, one of the most highlighted debates comes from Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, dating from 1914 .From the concepts and theological principles introduced by Barth and Brunner comes the great and prolonged theological debate, forthcoming from the quarters of dialectical theology, particularly from Barths radical rejection of the notions of General Revelation and Natural Religion or Natural Theology, including the point of contact and the rest. By far, this argument has been known as the Barth-Brunner conflict . Due to the strong influence and very much detailed argument brought by Barth, the conflict between the two theologians has greatly affected the stand point of todays theology.This controversy has dominated the theological discussion of to-day, and has affected literally every problem . In this study, the primary discussion revolves in covering the issues brought by the debates of Barth and Brunner, and the theological concepts embedded in their proposed principles. From the point of view of the s tudy, the first thing to discuss is the concept of natural theology in order to determine the rationale for its rejection. Next, the study centers on the conflicting theologian, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner.Lastly, the study provides the analysis of their argument to explore the primary stand points from both theological perspectives. Discussion The Concept of Natural Theology In general, the Reformers were less enthusiastic about natural theology, in part because they rejected much of the scholastic tradition, in part because it tended to render special revelation, and particularly Scripture, less necessary, and in part because it granted fallen human beings powers of correct reasoning that the Reformers themselves saw as corrupted by sin .According to the traditional scholastic movement, the concept of natural theology only provides its significance by illustrating human sin and their never-ending need to survive more like an instinctive theological description however, with litt le standing ground in justifying how these humanistic needs pursue . It is not the place here to enter into the historical, psychological and theological reasons for the development of this great controversy. The historical reason is the adamant opposition that had to be shown to Nazi ideology and the wrong and dangerous theology of the German Christians.Barth rendered here an immeasurable service to sound theology and the cause of the Church as a whole . A form of natural theology that is worth defending takes its cue from core theological interpretations of the nature of God and the world. The concept of natural theology comprises of three theoretical perspectives that are derived mainly on nature that correlates with the divinity of God. The word natural in the expression natural theology is meant to mark a contrast between nature and revelation.The concept of Natural theology does not imply natural in the perspective of being a non-complex and unsophisticated belief, but rather, the natural theology is the product of a fairly sophisticated state of western theism and would have been foreign to many great religious thinkers before the Middle Ages. The concept of natural theology was realized during the era wherein theologians tried to logically obtain the answers to divine existence while at the stage of reflecting their religion.At this point of Middle Age, theologians obtain the elements that have been established already beforehand, and those that can provide unaided rationale for those parts that they believed to be unnatural. Hence, they coined and develop the natural theology, which somehow contradicts the existence of natural activities through unsupported or chose ones. As for the theory, it mainly exemplifies that everyone is chosen in their own account of being an image created after God . The concept of natural theology allied with Nazism most especially during the time of Jews massive discrimination.Significantly, the natural theology, even fro m the early times, pointed its fingers to chosen individuals, such as the Jews, wherein the theology contradicts the fact that these people are chose. The possibility of natural theology has been denied by some theologians and by some philosophers. The theological arguments against natural theology are mostly concerned with the relationship between reason and faith they urge the uselessness of reason as a means to salvation and of philosophical speculation as a step on the road to heaven .One of the essential criticism that served as ground basis for the concept of natural theology is the fact that these principles are essentially from the philosophical perspectives, which in the end obtained vast arguments and criticisms against natural theology itself. In particular, the theologians of Natural perspective drew heavily on natural philosophy to show how the hand of the Creator could be discerned in the Book of Nature as well as the Book of Scriptures.By contrast, those still wedded to a more traditional order in Church and State tended to be wary of natural theology and the forms of natural philosophy interlinked with it as obscurities from a theology based on Divine revelation . On the other hand, the significance of Natural theology is its ability to provide an analysis of the human situation and the question of God implied in it. One side of the traditional arguments for the existence of God usually does this, in so far as they elucidate the dependent, transitory, and relational nature of finite human existence.But, in developing the other side of these arguments, natural theology tried to derive theological affirmations from the analysis of mans finitude . The natural theology concentrates mainly on the natural imagery of men as earthly beings being linked to Gods image. As for the theory, it mentions that every human being possesses the right to obtain revelation from God for everyone is from the same image, which is God. Somehow, these two rationales are deemed as the primary arguments that render the argument of the Natural theology.First, natural theology should not claim to operate with an account of pure, objective, ahistorical reason . For mans reasoning cannot be considered absolutely pure from intention for man by his own nature is deprived from complete purity hence, contradicts the statement of natural theology itself. Second, natural theology should not offer a philosophical metaphysics as a way of mediating between faith and the world . From these concepts, the argument against natural theology settles in. Different theologians, most significantly Karl Barth realizes the wrong ideations brought by the theology.From the perspective of Thomas Aquinas (12251274), he claimed that there are certain truths that are attainable by the powers of reason properly applied, and others that are beyond the reach of reason, and are known only through revelation. From Aquinas theology, the concept attaining revelation and reason conjoins to further discover the truth and absolute reasoning . The concept of nature in the doctrines of theology can be misleading and contradictory for its very meaning can be a profound statement of obscurity, which can also contribute to the eclipse of Gods imagery .As for the theory of Natural origination, it is a major concept where philosophy of religion interrelates theological aspects. Philosophies of religion scrutinizes what the sheer existence of the universe entails what it forces us to conclude, and likewise what its order entails. Protestantism is usually against the concept of natural theology for they claim that God, whose existence is demonstrated, is not the Christian God. For Protestants, God Himself should not concern in Himself in providing His existence for He in fact exist above all.Whether natural theology is to be dismissed and why is a major area of investigation in Christian theology. Roman Catholic somehow defended the concept of natural theology for they belie ve that there are essential differences between what we can know of God by means of natural theology and what we know of God by revelation. Currently, natural theology tends to act and to be used as a tool that metaphorically provides clergy and students some rigorous proof to demonstrate Gods existence .Emil Brunner In 1914, Brunner published a work entitled Nature and Grace wherein his main argument coincides mainly on the generational theologys task of reverting back to the concept of natural theology . Brunner, being one of the main characters of natural theological concept, obtained his idea of natural theology from the concept of imago Del or in translation would mean, Image of God. Human nature is constituted in such a way that there is an analog with the being of God .Considering the sinful nature of human beings as installed already in their instinctive characteristic, Brunner stated that the ability of human beings to discern the presence of God is still there by the conce pt or reasoning that God remains in the natural environment. Within the context of human beings as sinners, still their innate nature are capable of recognizing the presence of God and are still aware of their guilt before God. All these linkage are brought by the concept of natural stand present in man from the time of his creation and image pattern.Hence, as Brunner concluded, this linkage brings forth revelation to every man with no special disposition present, such as sinner or holy, rich or poor, or any other means. Brunner significantly pointed out that God can manifest His revelation to anyone with no consideration on human characteristic since human beings are all created out of his natural image . As per Brunners defense on natural theology, greatly point out the significance of the doctrine of the incarnation to revelation in Christ may be seen the personal self-disclosure of God .From Brunners ground basis, it is the story of creation that serves as the fore ground of thi s theological belief. He reasoned that there are considerably three rationales that offer support for the theory of Natural theology namely, human reason, and order of the world and beauty of the world . In the argument of Human Reason, considering that Gods existence can be found in His creation, and then it is acceptable to use the idea that God can be most likely found in the highest peak of His creation, which is human reason .The next argument Brunner introduced is the ordering of the world, wherein the prime philosopher concerned is Thomas Aquinas. Considering that the natural pattern in the environment is unquestionably and extremely organized, this phenomena been emphasized to be from God . Brunner did no go as far in denouncing the philosophical approach to God. Nevertheless, Brunner stated that the attempt to derive knowledge of God from creation, which is the theology of natural religion, is ultimately not being helpful in theological doctrine.He even admitted that the kn owledge of the Creator forms as a component of our existence. However, Brunner concluded that this knowledge component placed to human beings as Gods creation does not follow that human beings know God completely, since such philosophical intelligence does not end in communion with God . Brunners theology has been linked very much within an existentialist, dialectical framework and focused mainly on the uniqueness of existential, personal understanding. He even continued with basically anthropological starting point.Lastly, the concept of beauty present in the world has also been emphasized as an argumentative statement in Brunners ideologies. According to these theologians, the presence of beauty in surrounding world is the primary depiction of Gods existence through the natures beauty . Another focus entailed by Brunner in his beliefs is in faith of having personal encounter between the one who hears the Word, believer, or human being per say, and the God who speaks and draws near in grace, as distinct from an acceptance of abstract propositions of belief.Christianity thus sets forth truth as encounter, Brunners primary effect and influence thus far had come through his writings of The Mediator and The Divine Imperative and in Brunner Oldham perceived the chances and events for creating an innovative and urgently required dialogue between evangelical theology and the contemporary human sciences vital if the churches were to address seriously the current world context . Enveloped in Brunners appeal to nature is an idea, which can be traced back to Luther, known as the orders of creation. The generation Nineteenth-century German Liberal Protestantism had utilized this perspective as their basis, and further developed a theology, which permitted the German culture, including a positive assessment of the state, to become of primary significance theologically . Brunner had used this idea of the point of contact back in 1927, and it is integral to his understandi ng of human nature. For Brunner, human nature is constituted in such a way that there is a ready made point of contract for divine revelation. Revelation thus addresses itself to a human nature, which already has sonic Idea of what that revelation is about.For example, take the gospel demand to repent of sin, Brunner argues that this makes little sense, unless human beings already have some idea of what sin is. Karl Barth Analysis of the Argument During the twentieth century, Karl Barth (18861968) initiated the so called spiritual argument or attack in the theoretical concept of natural theology. For this reason, the theologian ties between him and another leading neo-orthodox theologian, Emil Brunner (18891966) broke due Barths attack on Brunners theological concepts .Such action is very much important for Barths perspective in that it shows the importance of natural theologys attempt to further provide an illustration of Christianitys attaining its peak on German civilization henc e, the sole purpose of Barth is to negate the ally status of natural theology to the concept of Nazism . Barths criticism is that it goes beyond any rejection of natural theology that is based on claims that it is invalid, unpersuasive, or unnecessary .From Barths argument, he exemplified that God has indeed revealed His identity to human beings hence, it should be natural for humans to be convinced on Gods existence. It is already insignificant to have Gods existence justified in other forms for He already chosen to be revealed in the form of His triune son, which is Jesus Christ . A natural theology that proceeds from a different starting point must inevitably compromise and distract in relation to the primary theological task.Even worse, it may threaten to subvert the true nature of the faith by the introduction of foreign and ethically dangerous materials . Barths last consideration to reject the principles of natural education lies with the fact that such form of theology is a potential ally to compensate the needs of German ideations against Jews and other racial backgrounds. By far, the theoretical principle of Natural theology hinders the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ. From the perspective of Barths argument, natural theology is a human attempt to initiation subversions for humans necessity for revelation.The theology, by its very purpose and significance, attempts to learn more about God in a manner and under conditions specified by humans ways and not by God Himself . In Barths view, the concept of natural theology is very much compromised in historical, philosophical and theological significances. The great Scottish theologian Hugh Ross Mackintosh once summarized the questions centering on revelation as follows religious knowledge of God, wherever existing, comes by revelation otherwise we should be committed to the incredible position that a man can know God without Has willing to be known .The main idea embedded in Barths desire to counter the theology of natural perspective is for the purpose of safeguarding the integrity present in divine revelation against human attempts to Construct their own notions of God. As for Barths perspective, he argues that revelations from God do not simply occur to anyone, unless God chose to. It is neither inborn nor chosen to be possessed by me, but it is Gods choice to reveal Himself to an individual. Revelation, indeed, is out of humans power but solely rely to Gods preference.Although deeply distrustful of all apologetic instincts, Barth appears to make a minor but important concession in his discussion of natural theology. In its proclamation of Gods self-revelation, the Bible does not ignore the details of the cosmos or the physical world as these are known from empirical observation and human experience. In their own way, they attest the divine truth . However, this event does not simply occur or free for man to manipulate. It is not a separate line of enquiry that can simply alter or displace human perspectives from the original faith .On the contrary, its function in Scripture is to incorporate within a single framework all that attaches to human existence in the cosmos. The argument of Barth provides an extended and systematic criticism of natural theology. The main conflict thrown by his argument argues that such theology, which comes to humanity from nature, expresses the humanitys self-preservation and self-affirmation in the face of God . Barth views the concept of natural theology as a safeguarding perspective to cover human beings longing to justify self against God and for the provision of independent intellectualities.His conflicting idealism against this theology rests on his fundamental belief that it undermines the necessity and uniqueness of Gods self-revelation. From the logical statement introduced by Barths argument, if knowledge of God can be achieved independently of Gods self-revelation in Christ, then it follows that humanity can dictate the place, time and means of its knowledge of God. The perspective of Barth against natural theology institutes a close relationship between the theology itself and the subject of human independence against religion and divine supervision.Considering Barths familiarity in the concept of natural theology, he confirms and expresses the human desire to find God on our own terms . The central concept on Barths argument had been scrutinized by the religious community hence, considering his argument against natural theology. However, other theologians have been having this assumption of Barths initiating a scientific theology despite of his overcorrection of the Reformed theological position, and that an informed recovery of an older position is overdue.A scientific theology offers such reappropriation and the second of these merits dose attention . It is a simple fact of historical theology chat the Reformed theological tradition has not, on the whole, opposed natural theology. Conclusio n The argument of Barth and Brunner with the subject of natural theology has been present from and long influenced the condition of catholic beliefs and perception against the occurrence of Gods existence and the value of human self-justification and intellectual identity.The natural theology mainly states that the existence of God is in the physical form of nature itself, considering its organization, beauty and mans intelligence, which are derived from Gods imagery. However, Barth refuted this theology and stated that Gods existence is in the form of Jesus Christ. He contradicts the theology due to its self-justification, and tendency to form ally with Nazism.BibliographyAllen, D. and Springstein, E. O. Philosophy for Understanding Theology (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007) p. 19.Clements, K. Faith on the Frontier A Life of J. H. Oldham (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999) p. 272.Gonzales, J. L. Essential Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005) p. 118.G renz, J. Theology for the Community of God (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000) p. 50.Huyssteen, W. V. and Shults, F. L. The Evolution of Rationality (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006) p. 392.Kenny, P. and Kenny, A. . The God of the Philosophers (Oxford University Press, 1979) p. 2.Kraemer H, Religion and the Christian Faith (James Clarke & Co., 2003) p. 356.McGrath, A. E. An Introduction to Christianity (Blackwell Publishing, 1997) p. 162.McGrath, A. E. Christian Theology An Introduction (Blackwell Publishing, 2006) 170.McGrath, A. E. The Science of God An Introduction to Scientific Theology (Eerdmans Publishing, 2004) p. 84.Porter, et. al. R. The Cambridge History of Science (Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 270.Scott, P. A Political Theology of Nature (Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 40.Tilich, P. Systematic Theology (University of Chicago Press, 1963) p. 14.