What do you think?
Dogmatics
The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption
Emil Brunner (1889-1966) was the most widely read theologian in the English-speaking world throughout the mid-twentieth century. Brunner was Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at the University of Zurich from 1924-55. His key works The Mediator, The Divine Imperative, and Man in Revolt were standard texts for Protestant seminaries for decades.
386 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1949
About the author
Emil Brunner
195 books11 followersHeinrich Emil Brunner was a Protestant theologian and Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at the University of Zurich.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 28, 2024
Brunner is valuable for his provocative and penetrating suggestions more so than for his established conclusions.
Cosmology: The Bible is decidedly of a different worldview than what we are able to hold today. This is manifest in its view of space, time, and the original state of creation. We must distinguish between the form and content of revelation.
Anthropology: Sin is emphasized and a fall is upheld, but a historical Adam is denied. Brunner is basically agnostic as to the origin of the fall. Suggestive comments about the relationship of psychology and sin.
Providence: The gospel doesn’t solve the theodicy problem, but it makes it disappear.
Brunner is quick to claim things as mysterious and warns against speculation. It isn’t clear if he plays this card at the right times.
Cosmology: The Bible is decidedly of a different worldview than what we are able to hold today. This is manifest in its view of space, time, and the original state of creation. We must distinguish between the form and content of revelation.
Anthropology: Sin is emphasized and a fall is upheld, but a historical Adam is denied. Brunner is basically agnostic as to the origin of the fall. Suggestive comments about the relationship of psychology and sin.
Providence: The gospel doesn’t solve the theodicy problem, but it makes it disappear.
Brunner is quick to claim things as mysterious and warns against speculation. It isn’t clear if he plays this card at the right times.
June 29, 2024
THE SECOND VOLUME OF BRUNNER’S MAGNUM OPUS
Heinrich Emil Brunner (1889-1966) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, who (along with Karl Barth) was the leader of the Neo-Orthodox theology movement. [NOTE; page numbers below refer to a 386-page hardcover edition.]
He wrote in the Preface to this 1949 book, “after the promising beginnings of the ‘Dialectical Theology’ in overcoming the sterile and false contrast between Liberalism and Orthodoxy, we are unfortunately back again at the point where this contrast dominates theological discussion afresh. The rediscovery of Biblical truth has again… led to a rigid fundamentalism and confessionalism, which offers plenty of vulnerable points for rationalistic attacks from the intellectual Left Wing, and makes it appear as though criticism and convinced Christian thought were opposed. The doctrine of Creation and Revelation here offered is based upon the conviction that sound criticism and genuine Christian thinking are not incompatible. Those members of the Church who passively accept what they have been taught as ‘revealed truth’ seem to be unaware of the fact that their view of ‘faith’ is hampered by an age-long tradition which has misunderstood the meaning of ‘faith,’ regarding it not as ‘encounter’ with the Living Christ, but as the acceptance of ‘revealed truths.’ … the Reformation… sets us free to have a faith which is based on nothing save the Love of God revealed in Jesus Christ… This is the fundamental aim of the present work. I now offer it to the reader’s kind and critical attention.”
He states, “it is possible to over-estimate, as well as to under-estimate, the blinding of the intellect to sin… Sin does not hinder men from knowing the things of the world, the laws of nature, the facts of nature, and man in his natural, historical and cultural manifestations. But the more we are dealing with the inner nature of man, with his attitude to God, it is evident that this sinful illusion becomes increasingly dominant.” (Pg. 27)
He acknowledges, “Not only secular science and philosophy, however, but Christian theology also, may fail through lack of self-criticism, and, in point of fact, this has often happened… For centuries, Christian theology … made the Bible the infallible textbook of natural science… Theology forgot to make that critical distinction between that which is the object of natural knowledge of the world through reason, and that which, by its very nature, can only be the content of divine revelation… This is particularly true of all the religious truths connected with the creation of the world… The so-called ‘Mosaic’ story of Creation is not only a wonderful testimony to the divine revelation, but it is also the product of a very primitive view of the world… The Biblical story of Creation is bound up with a picture of the world current in antiquity, which no longer exists for us.” (Pg. 28) Later, he adds, “the ‘Mosaic’ revelation of God’s Creation contains elements of imperishable truth, in a picture of the world which is in itself primitive.” (Pg. 38)
He suggests, “The Creation is the invisible background of Evolution; Evolution is the visible foreground of Creation. Faith alone grasps that invisible aspect; science grasps this visible aspect. Evolution is the mechanism of creation; creation is the spiritual source and the Final Cause of Evolution.” (Pg. 40)
He explains, “In the sphere of Biblical thought, only man in the dual form of the ‘I’ and the ‘Thou’ is the man who has been ‘made in the Image of God.’ Sexual polarity, however, as such, is not itself the ‘I’ and the ‘Thou.’ It is only a picture of the purpose of Creation, and the natural basis of the true ‘I’ and ‘Thou.’” (Pg. 65) He continues, “From the point of view of Biblical thought we have to take into account both facts: the differences between individuals and the similarity of men, due to their common humanity. As created in the Image of God all men are equal; created as individuals, they are unequal. The need for completion, due to inequality, is the natural form of that true community, of agape which belongs to the truth that man has been made in the Image of God. These statements contain the characteristic principles of Christian social ethics.” (Pg. 66)
He argues, “this depreciation of sex is foreign to Biblical thought. It is opposed to the Biblical view of the creation of man as the ‘man-woman’; it belongs… to the myth of the androgynes, to the theory of unity. Sex is a glorious creation of God closely connected with the great mystery that man has been created in the Image of God. To make it the source of sinful infection is therefore contrary to the spirit of the Bible, to the Divine Creation.” (Pg. 105)
He asserts, “we must follow the dogmatic rule that we have already accepted as final: our final authority is not what Scripture says, but its relation to the center of the Christian Faith as a whole, that is, to the will of God made known to us in Jesus Christ. Those who take their stand, in this question, upon the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration, find themselves confronted by the greatest difficulties.” (Pg. 133)
He states, “the Divine freedom … is only revealed in … its perfection: the miracle of the Incarnation and Redemption. And this miracle of the divine revelation is the real ‘miracle’ of which the Bible speaks. All the so-called ‘miracles,’ those of the Old Testament and those of the New, are only the ‘accompaniment’ of this one miracle of revelation, the miracle of the Coming of God to man. They are events which point to this one supreme Miracle… They are all seen in the light of ‘Saving History’; they are miracles of revelation and salvation, not miracles of revelation and salvation, not miracles which draw attention to themselves; they are not done simply to startle or amaze.” (Pg. 166-167)
He observes, “If in our definition of Divine Providence we remain within the sphere of revelation, the question does not arise: How can causality or determination, and free, co-exist?... Here we are not faced by an intellectual problem, nor by a paradox, but by the impenetrable mystery of the divine working of Omnipotence, the working of Almighty God, who limits Himself, in order that He may make room for His creatures, and yet, because He limits Himself, does not cease to be Lord of all that happens. We know that both these statements are true… But we certainly have no idea HOW this can be so. To see through this mystery is the prerogative of the Creator, the mystery of His Nature and of His action. From the standpoint of revelation we must accept both statements; that God rules and directs all things; and we alone, and not He, are responsible for the evil that we do.” (Pg. 174-175)
He proposes, “the message of the New Testament as a whole is an answer to the question of theodicy. It shows us the rift, which goes right through the world which God has created. God did not create either the evil in man, or the devil as the power of darkness… He has also created creatures who have a free will, who CAN become disobedient, who can decide against His will. The fact that this has happened, is evident to all; WHY it happened---that is the irrational element.to which there is no answer.” (Pg. 181) He continues, “here, at the Cross, it becomes evident that evil is that which God does not will and does not do, and at the same time, that God has such power over this evil, which He does not will, that He is able to make it an instrument of His saving work… Thus here… the problem of theodicy is solved, but not in theory… but ‘existentially’ and practically.” (Pg. 182) He concludes, “Suffering becomes the say to eternal life. Here, then, the theodicy problem is not solved intellectually, but by a real redemption.” (Pg. 183)
He acknowledges, “(f we wish to be honest we cannot help speaking of a history of ‘progressive revelation.’ God did not reveal Himself in the time of the Judges, or even in the time of Moses, as He did to Isaiah, Jeremiah and the great unknown Prophet of the Exile. In His revelation God… did not disclose everything at once, but gradually, through a history of some fifteen hundred years, whose first beginnings are dimly seen through the mists of antiquity.” (Pg. 199)
He points out, The Synoptists are much nearer to the actual picture of the life of Jesus than the Gospel of John, in spite of the fact that their glimpses are very meagre, occasionally rather dim, and have often been strongly ‘touched up.’ But this does not mean that there is any contradiction between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. Critical reflection has produced another result: The Synoptic Gospels make it possible to reconstruct another result, with some certainty, a picture of Jesus which everyone---whether a Christian believer or not---can recognize; but John has no intention of telling us what happened, and how; his aim is to teach us who Jesus was, and what His life means.” (Pg. 246)
He argues, “Theological liberalism is an arrogant attempt to see ‘Jesus Himself,’ without being led to this view by the Apostles. Theological orthodoxy, on the other hand, disclaims the right to try to ‘see’ Him for oneself at all; it simply accepts the authority of the Church, or of the Bible, and on the strength of that accepts the Apostolic doctrine, apart from personal conviction altogether. Liberalism is a mistaken autonomy; it consists in the failure to grasp the fact that apart from the witnesses to the Resurrection we cannot see Jesus at all, as He really is. Orthodoxy, is a mistaken heteronomy, which substitutes faith in the witness of the Apostles, and thus faith in the authority of Scripture, for personal faith in Jesus Himself.” (Pg. 252)
He states, “Why do we believe that Jesus is the Christ? We believe it because this is so, and He is what He says He is, and we believe it because what He says agrees with his being, because in His being He reveals two things: God’s being and ours, because since we know God in Him, at the same time we know ourselves, and therefore we know that this knowledge is true. Hence the’faith-knowledge’ of Jesus the Christ is an autonomous and not a heteronomous truth. We do not believe that Jesus is the Christ because the Apostles say so. But we cannot know it apart from their witness.” (Pg. 258)
He points out, “[Rudolf] Bultmann makes a certain modern philosophical school of thought---and not ‘modern man’---the judge of what is valid in the New Testament or not. In spite of all this, we cannot be sufficiently thankful to Bultmann for his attack, particularly because, in his more positive statements, he comes much closer … to the real task of theology: To understand the New Testament in such a way that every statement it makes is questioned for its ‘existential’ meaning.” (Pg. 266) He adds, “the idea of the Mythical should not be taken for granted and used in the way which Bultmann does. If anyone wants to be critical, let him be above all critical in the use of his criteria! The fact that Bultmann does this too little is the reason why his work which is in itself so valuable, and achieves so much, has been so hotly opposed in certain circles; this is not fair to Bultmann’s work, but some of the blame for it lies at his own door.” (Pg. 270)
He admits, “We know that when we confess [Jesus] as the God-Man, and must so confess Him, we are saying something which goes far beyond anything we can understand. We have no right to claim that we have EXPLAINED the mystery of the Person of Jesus. Indeed this IS the mystery of Jesus, of the Man whom we meet in the pages of the Gospels, that in Him we meet THE Man in whom God Himself meets us… in saying this we are not going beyond what has been given in History, for the story of the Resurrection is part of the story of Jesus.” (Pg. 349)
He suggests, “Paul places his own encounter with the Risen Lord on the same level as that of the other Apostles… to him who was the earliest and most reliable of the witnesses to the Resurrection, the thing that mattered most was not the Empty Tomb, but the meeting with the Risen Lord, as a spiritual personal reality… All this suggests that the original testimony to the Resurrection did not contain any reference to the Empty Tomb, but was solely concerned with the appearances of the Risen Lord to His disciples.” (Pg. 367-368)
This book is “must reading” for anyone seriously studying Christian theology.
Heinrich Emil Brunner (1889-1966) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, who (along with Karl Barth) was the leader of the Neo-Orthodox theology movement. [NOTE; page numbers below refer to a 386-page hardcover edition.]
He wrote in the Preface to this 1949 book, “after the promising beginnings of the ‘Dialectical Theology’ in overcoming the sterile and false contrast between Liberalism and Orthodoxy, we are unfortunately back again at the point where this contrast dominates theological discussion afresh. The rediscovery of Biblical truth has again… led to a rigid fundamentalism and confessionalism, which offers plenty of vulnerable points for rationalistic attacks from the intellectual Left Wing, and makes it appear as though criticism and convinced Christian thought were opposed. The doctrine of Creation and Revelation here offered is based upon the conviction that sound criticism and genuine Christian thinking are not incompatible. Those members of the Church who passively accept what they have been taught as ‘revealed truth’ seem to be unaware of the fact that their view of ‘faith’ is hampered by an age-long tradition which has misunderstood the meaning of ‘faith,’ regarding it not as ‘encounter’ with the Living Christ, but as the acceptance of ‘revealed truths.’ … the Reformation… sets us free to have a faith which is based on nothing save the Love of God revealed in Jesus Christ… This is the fundamental aim of the present work. I now offer it to the reader’s kind and critical attention.”
He states, “it is possible to over-estimate, as well as to under-estimate, the blinding of the intellect to sin… Sin does not hinder men from knowing the things of the world, the laws of nature, the facts of nature, and man in his natural, historical and cultural manifestations. But the more we are dealing with the inner nature of man, with his attitude to God, it is evident that this sinful illusion becomes increasingly dominant.” (Pg. 27)
He acknowledges, “Not only secular science and philosophy, however, but Christian theology also, may fail through lack of self-criticism, and, in point of fact, this has often happened… For centuries, Christian theology … made the Bible the infallible textbook of natural science… Theology forgot to make that critical distinction between that which is the object of natural knowledge of the world through reason, and that which, by its very nature, can only be the content of divine revelation… This is particularly true of all the religious truths connected with the creation of the world… The so-called ‘Mosaic’ story of Creation is not only a wonderful testimony to the divine revelation, but it is also the product of a very primitive view of the world… The Biblical story of Creation is bound up with a picture of the world current in antiquity, which no longer exists for us.” (Pg. 28) Later, he adds, “the ‘Mosaic’ revelation of God’s Creation contains elements of imperishable truth, in a picture of the world which is in itself primitive.” (Pg. 38)
He suggests, “The Creation is the invisible background of Evolution; Evolution is the visible foreground of Creation. Faith alone grasps that invisible aspect; science grasps this visible aspect. Evolution is the mechanism of creation; creation is the spiritual source and the Final Cause of Evolution.” (Pg. 40)
He explains, “In the sphere of Biblical thought, only man in the dual form of the ‘I’ and the ‘Thou’ is the man who has been ‘made in the Image of God.’ Sexual polarity, however, as such, is not itself the ‘I’ and the ‘Thou.’ It is only a picture of the purpose of Creation, and the natural basis of the true ‘I’ and ‘Thou.’” (Pg. 65) He continues, “From the point of view of Biblical thought we have to take into account both facts: the differences between individuals and the similarity of men, due to their common humanity. As created in the Image of God all men are equal; created as individuals, they are unequal. The need for completion, due to inequality, is the natural form of that true community, of agape which belongs to the truth that man has been made in the Image of God. These statements contain the characteristic principles of Christian social ethics.” (Pg. 66)
He argues, “this depreciation of sex is foreign to Biblical thought. It is opposed to the Biblical view of the creation of man as the ‘man-woman’; it belongs… to the myth of the androgynes, to the theory of unity. Sex is a glorious creation of God closely connected with the great mystery that man has been created in the Image of God. To make it the source of sinful infection is therefore contrary to the spirit of the Bible, to the Divine Creation.” (Pg. 105)
He asserts, “we must follow the dogmatic rule that we have already accepted as final: our final authority is not what Scripture says, but its relation to the center of the Christian Faith as a whole, that is, to the will of God made known to us in Jesus Christ. Those who take their stand, in this question, upon the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration, find themselves confronted by the greatest difficulties.” (Pg. 133)
He states, “the Divine freedom … is only revealed in … its perfection: the miracle of the Incarnation and Redemption. And this miracle of the divine revelation is the real ‘miracle’ of which the Bible speaks. All the so-called ‘miracles,’ those of the Old Testament and those of the New, are only the ‘accompaniment’ of this one miracle of revelation, the miracle of the Coming of God to man. They are events which point to this one supreme Miracle… They are all seen in the light of ‘Saving History’; they are miracles of revelation and salvation, not miracles of revelation and salvation, not miracles which draw attention to themselves; they are not done simply to startle or amaze.” (Pg. 166-167)
He observes, “If in our definition of Divine Providence we remain within the sphere of revelation, the question does not arise: How can causality or determination, and free, co-exist?... Here we are not faced by an intellectual problem, nor by a paradox, but by the impenetrable mystery of the divine working of Omnipotence, the working of Almighty God, who limits Himself, in order that He may make room for His creatures, and yet, because He limits Himself, does not cease to be Lord of all that happens. We know that both these statements are true… But we certainly have no idea HOW this can be so. To see through this mystery is the prerogative of the Creator, the mystery of His Nature and of His action. From the standpoint of revelation we must accept both statements; that God rules and directs all things; and we alone, and not He, are responsible for the evil that we do.” (Pg. 174-175)
He proposes, “the message of the New Testament as a whole is an answer to the question of theodicy. It shows us the rift, which goes right through the world which God has created. God did not create either the evil in man, or the devil as the power of darkness… He has also created creatures who have a free will, who CAN become disobedient, who can decide against His will. The fact that this has happened, is evident to all; WHY it happened---that is the irrational element.to which there is no answer.” (Pg. 181) He continues, “here, at the Cross, it becomes evident that evil is that which God does not will and does not do, and at the same time, that God has such power over this evil, which He does not will, that He is able to make it an instrument of His saving work… Thus here… the problem of theodicy is solved, but not in theory… but ‘existentially’ and practically.” (Pg. 182) He concludes, “Suffering becomes the say to eternal life. Here, then, the theodicy problem is not solved intellectually, but by a real redemption.” (Pg. 183)
He acknowledges, “(f we wish to be honest we cannot help speaking of a history of ‘progressive revelation.’ God did not reveal Himself in the time of the Judges, or even in the time of Moses, as He did to Isaiah, Jeremiah and the great unknown Prophet of the Exile. In His revelation God… did not disclose everything at once, but gradually, through a history of some fifteen hundred years, whose first beginnings are dimly seen through the mists of antiquity.” (Pg. 199)
He points out, The Synoptists are much nearer to the actual picture of the life of Jesus than the Gospel of John, in spite of the fact that their glimpses are very meagre, occasionally rather dim, and have often been strongly ‘touched up.’ But this does not mean that there is any contradiction between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. Critical reflection has produced another result: The Synoptic Gospels make it possible to reconstruct another result, with some certainty, a picture of Jesus which everyone---whether a Christian believer or not---can recognize; but John has no intention of telling us what happened, and how; his aim is to teach us who Jesus was, and what His life means.” (Pg. 246)
He argues, “Theological liberalism is an arrogant attempt to see ‘Jesus Himself,’ without being led to this view by the Apostles. Theological orthodoxy, on the other hand, disclaims the right to try to ‘see’ Him for oneself at all; it simply accepts the authority of the Church, or of the Bible, and on the strength of that accepts the Apostolic doctrine, apart from personal conviction altogether. Liberalism is a mistaken autonomy; it consists in the failure to grasp the fact that apart from the witnesses to the Resurrection we cannot see Jesus at all, as He really is. Orthodoxy, is a mistaken heteronomy, which substitutes faith in the witness of the Apostles, and thus faith in the authority of Scripture, for personal faith in Jesus Himself.” (Pg. 252)
He states, “Why do we believe that Jesus is the Christ? We believe it because this is so, and He is what He says He is, and we believe it because what He says agrees with his being, because in His being He reveals two things: God’s being and ours, because since we know God in Him, at the same time we know ourselves, and therefore we know that this knowledge is true. Hence the’faith-knowledge’ of Jesus the Christ is an autonomous and not a heteronomous truth. We do not believe that Jesus is the Christ because the Apostles say so. But we cannot know it apart from their witness.” (Pg. 258)
He points out, “[Rudolf] Bultmann makes a certain modern philosophical school of thought---and not ‘modern man’---the judge of what is valid in the New Testament or not. In spite of all this, we cannot be sufficiently thankful to Bultmann for his attack, particularly because, in his more positive statements, he comes much closer … to the real task of theology: To understand the New Testament in such a way that every statement it makes is questioned for its ‘existential’ meaning.” (Pg. 266) He adds, “the idea of the Mythical should not be taken for granted and used in the way which Bultmann does. If anyone wants to be critical, let him be above all critical in the use of his criteria! The fact that Bultmann does this too little is the reason why his work which is in itself so valuable, and achieves so much, has been so hotly opposed in certain circles; this is not fair to Bultmann’s work, but some of the blame for it lies at his own door.” (Pg. 270)
He admits, “We know that when we confess [Jesus] as the God-Man, and must so confess Him, we are saying something which goes far beyond anything we can understand. We have no right to claim that we have EXPLAINED the mystery of the Person of Jesus. Indeed this IS the mystery of Jesus, of the Man whom we meet in the pages of the Gospels, that in Him we meet THE Man in whom God Himself meets us… in saying this we are not going beyond what has been given in History, for the story of the Resurrection is part of the story of Jesus.” (Pg. 349)
He suggests, “Paul places his own encounter with the Risen Lord on the same level as that of the other Apostles… to him who was the earliest and most reliable of the witnesses to the Resurrection, the thing that mattered most was not the Empty Tomb, but the meeting with the Risen Lord, as a spiritual personal reality… All this suggests that the original testimony to the Resurrection did not contain any reference to the Empty Tomb, but was solely concerned with the appearances of the Risen Lord to His disciples.” (Pg. 367-368)
This book is “must reading” for anyone seriously studying Christian theology.
December 4, 2017
Volume II of Brunner's Dogmatics is the best (I can say this since I am a far way into the third volume). Here is Brunner's best thoughts on theological issues like the doctrine of creation and christology. At many points I think he demonstrated a succinct brilliance that rivals Karl Barth. No one can contest that the Church Dogmatics are the superior work, but then again, the CD's are a mammoth 14 volume work.
Committed to the core authority of the Bible, but not its inerrancy, Brunner walks a bizarre line in, for instance, accepting evolution and the Adam is not historical or that the virgin birth or descent into hell were legendary in nature, while still insisting on the core of biblical teaching, insisting against complete demythologization of, for instance, miracles and demons. At points I think methodologically he was not consistent, but that does not necessarily mean he was wrong. I don't think Brunner satisfactorily addresses how a text might not have "happened" historically while still be true or why one text for him need not be historically or scientifically true (like evolution for instance) while another definitely had to be (like miracles or demons). It is an uneven method.
There is lots of great little insights in this and the other volumes, if you want to read a theologian that is (a) not a fundamentalist, (b) does care about the Bible, and (c) is deep but clear. I will still say that Wolfhart Pannenberg is the greatest systematic theologian of the last century with Karl Barth as the most influential. Nevertheless, Brunner deserves his place at the table.
Committed to the core authority of the Bible, but not its inerrancy, Brunner walks a bizarre line in, for instance, accepting evolution and the Adam is not historical or that the virgin birth or descent into hell were legendary in nature, while still insisting on the core of biblical teaching, insisting against complete demythologization of, for instance, miracles and demons. At points I think methodologically he was not consistent, but that does not necessarily mean he was wrong. I don't think Brunner satisfactorily addresses how a text might not have "happened" historically while still be true or why one text for him need not be historically or scientifically true (like evolution for instance) while another definitely had to be (like miracles or demons). It is an uneven method.
There is lots of great little insights in this and the other volumes, if you want to read a theologian that is (a) not a fundamentalist, (b) does care about the Bible, and (c) is deep but clear. I will still say that Wolfhart Pannenberg is the greatest systematic theologian of the last century with Karl Barth as the most influential. Nevertheless, Brunner deserves his place at the table.
November 13, 2012
A good and solid book by Brunner, second only to his _The Mediator_. Despite his liberalism, I think much of what he has to say is quite orthodox... I'm not always sure how he draws the conclusions he does (given his liberal biases), but overall he is NOT someone that should be ignored. And, if you are gonna read a "lib" he should be at or near the top of your list.
July 3, 2021
Quarantine-Book #8:
I just finished "The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption; Dogmatics: Volume 2," by Emil Brunner.
Brunner begins his section on Creation not from Gn, as so many theologians do, but from Jn 1. His Christocentric approach is greatly appreciated.
"Theological monergism is already the beginning of Pantheism," p 34.
Brunner ends each chapter with an appendix chapter which covers the historical theology perspective. This is interesting because he can show how and why he says what he does in the previously chapter.
His theological anthropology is alarmingly hopeful. It is one thing to say humans shouldnt worry about sin; the other extreme is just as wrong. The prodigal sinned when he left the father not when he was born. Brunner is as semi-pelagian as I am in the realm of original sin. Interestingly he is still enchanted, a believer in the Satanic and demonic realm, and that they influence humans.
Brunner says that "Christ, the victor, implies negatively, the presupposition that there is a supra-human power of darkness," p 134. He landed at the chapter of Angels, Demons and Satan by stating we have no reason to believe the world is fallen, so there must be something more going on. Well played.
I appreciate how Brunner acknowledges that Theodicy isnt the problem question, miracles are.
Dealing with models of the atonement Brunner says that none are "it" though these biblical models and motifs point at "it." He analyzes to polar opposites with Abelard and Anselm and finds flaws with both: too objective or too subjective. He balances well. His subjective part ("subjective-objective") is similar to identification in Moltmann.
His writing on the Person of Christ is interesting especially because he refuses Greek philosophy and its categories (substance, essence, subsistence, etc.). He affirms the full humanity and deity of Christ while stating that preexistance was super-historical (I need a book on that alone). This leaves us with fully man, fully one with the LOGOS, fully come for man with the Kingdom and coming back for the consummation of the Kingdom. I need some time to dwell here and possibly some more Brunner (which I have in the stack: Revelation and Reason; Dogmatics V3). This was some of the most passionately argued points on the incarnation and the person of Christ.
This was a very good book. Kudos for upsetting the Orthodox apple cart by not using philosophy.
I just finished "The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption; Dogmatics: Volume 2," by Emil Brunner.
Brunner begins his section on Creation not from Gn, as so many theologians do, but from Jn 1. His Christocentric approach is greatly appreciated.
"Theological monergism is already the beginning of Pantheism," p 34.
Brunner ends each chapter with an appendix chapter which covers the historical theology perspective. This is interesting because he can show how and why he says what he does in the previously chapter.
His theological anthropology is alarmingly hopeful. It is one thing to say humans shouldnt worry about sin; the other extreme is just as wrong. The prodigal sinned when he left the father not when he was born. Brunner is as semi-pelagian as I am in the realm of original sin. Interestingly he is still enchanted, a believer in the Satanic and demonic realm, and that they influence humans.
Brunner says that "Christ, the victor, implies negatively, the presupposition that there is a supra-human power of darkness," p 134. He landed at the chapter of Angels, Demons and Satan by stating we have no reason to believe the world is fallen, so there must be something more going on. Well played.
I appreciate how Brunner acknowledges that Theodicy isnt the problem question, miracles are.
Dealing with models of the atonement Brunner says that none are "it" though these biblical models and motifs point at "it." He analyzes to polar opposites with Abelard and Anselm and finds flaws with both: too objective or too subjective. He balances well. His subjective part ("subjective-objective") is similar to identification in Moltmann.
His writing on the Person of Christ is interesting especially because he refuses Greek philosophy and its categories (substance, essence, subsistence, etc.). He affirms the full humanity and deity of Christ while stating that preexistance was super-historical (I need a book on that alone). This leaves us with fully man, fully one with the LOGOS, fully come for man with the Kingdom and coming back for the consummation of the Kingdom. I need some time to dwell here and possibly some more Brunner (which I have in the stack: Revelation and Reason; Dogmatics V3). This was some of the most passionately argued points on the incarnation and the person of Christ.
This was a very good book. Kudos for upsetting the Orthodox apple cart by not using philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews