Perhaps Brunner Wins the Debate After All

In taking up the task of exploring the essence and function of nature as divine revelation, one must ask, is there really any residual hope for a new Natural Theology after Karl Barth? We recall Barth’s strong, and even vehement, opposition to Natural Theology and how this opposition has lingered since. However, in an effort to revisit and reframe the true value of the Barth-Brunner debate on Natural Theology, Alister McGrath suggests that the argument was really one about revelation. He says, “In the first place, this was not really a debate about natural theology at all. The issues under consideration primarily concerned the implications of the doctrine of creation, the nature of revelation and the capacity of humanity to discern and respond to that revelation.” This is an astute insight. What Barth was opposing was any revelation outside of Jesus Christ. What Brunner was arguing for was that God can indeed be known from what has been made. Which position is correct? Can nature reveal God? Forrest Clingerman opens a similar argument with the question, “[ Can] we “read” nature such that it can be characterized as revelation”? In other words, can we now, in a new construct of Natural Theology, validate that nature can indeed be a source of revelation? This is a poignant question, and the answer must include theological ground for doing so in light of the 1930s Barth-Brunner debate which will be briefly explored below.

However, before we begin, let us position ourselves. The debate regarding God’s revelation in nature continues in an ongoing quest for the answer. Even some contemporary views struggle with this question as evidenced even in something as simple as a web Bible commentary on Psalm 148. The commentary exegetes the Psalm as a laud, the creation itself gives voice of praise to the Creator, wherein all creatures by becoming after their own createdness echo and reflect the Divine glory, participating in the glory of God. Yet, as beautiful as this commentary is, leading the reader to “the loftiest consciousness of faith united with the grandest contemplation of the world,” the commentary seems to back-step as if it is committing a kind of theological faux pas, and goes on to then ask, “Does this overstep a boundary”? It is my contention that we do well to note that as we have previously seen, Scripture itself bears witness to nature “speaking” and “praising,” communicating and participating in the divine glory, telling the “reader of nature” something of the divine Love that created the world. And, as we have already shown, reading the divine language of nature is not an exercise that the creation, or humankind, can do in and of itself. Revelation of God can only come from God.

To provide a valid theological justification of the claim that creation can reveal God, the first item on the table is to briefly re-frame the Barth-Brunner debate. McGrath in his book, Emil Brunner: A Reappraisal, declares that these short pamphlets were not the defining moment in the discussion of Natural Theology. Although serving an important place in the history of theological discourse on nature, it was not, in fact, a landmark discussion. It consisted of “hastily written tracts neither of which can be said to have fairly represented the opposing position, nor even have given an adequate account of the author’s position.” In fact, as we have stated above, McGrath goes so far as to defend that the “polemic debate” was not really about Natural Theology at all, but rather it was a debate about “the nature of revelation, and the capacity of humanity to discern and respond to that revelation.” Emil Brunner, in the Christian Doctrine of God, addresses the debate with Barth and frames the debate along similar lines. Brunner says it this way, “Now some theologians believed (mistakingly) that their denial of a “theologia naturalis” obliged them also to deny the reality of the revelation in creation . . . The affirmation of a revelation in Creation has, in itself, nothing whatever to do with Natural Theology.”

Brunner here is getting straightway to the heart of the issue. Of course, the “some theologians” that he is referring to here, respectfully, is Karl Barth. In this quote, Brunner sees how Barth has intricately wrapped the concept of Natural Theology with that of God’s revelation in nature, which he describes as a doctrinal error when he added in parentheses “mistakenly.” Brunner delineates the assertions of Natural Theology as a separate theological construct from God’s revelation in nature. Barth’s real objection was an outcry against the modern tendency of sinful humanity to assert its independence, its own ability to discover and relate to God by its own choosing, in its own way, over and above God’s revelation in Christ. This was the core of Natural Theology, that is, for man in his own capabilities to “find and prove” God. The debate, then, was a contention over natural knowledge of God versus revealed knowledge of God. This was, in fact, the baseline premise of the dialectic theology movement at its core.

Natural Theology, categorically, became a vehicle for Barth’s movement even further toward a dialectic theology. McGrath states,

Barth’s unhelpful universalization and essentialization of the category of “natural theology” fails to take account of the fact that it designates multiple approaches to the relation of God and nature, and is open to recalibration and redirection in response to criticism. The Barth-Brunner debate is best seen as an “in-house” discussion . . . reflecting the concerns of the dialectic theology movement.

Since Barth’s position is open to “recalibration and redirection,” (on McGrath’s suggestion) perhaps we can demonstrate here that Barth’s objection to Natural Theology’s anthropocentric vantage point in placing humankind at the epicenter of a quest to find God was offering a needed corrective. However, perhaps Barth pushed too far in demanding no other revelation of God outside of Christ alone; a stance that, as Brunner pointed out on several occasions, violates Scripture itself.

Perhaps we can then take a more objective look at Brunner’s own Doctrine of Creation and how one might reconcile God’s revelation in the natural world as consonant with, yet not equal to, God’s revelation of the divine Self in the Incarnate Son. Brunner clearly and openly states, “A theology which intends to remain true to the Biblical witness to revelation should never have denied the reality of revelation in creation.” In light of this, McGrath asserts that Brunner offers a “legitimate Natural Theology” without the influences of National Socialism to which Barth was perhaps unconsciously reacting. This places Barth in proper historical context, allowing a proposed corrective to his high Christology, yet without diminishing God’s supreme revelation in the Son. To begin, let us turn to Brunner’s understanding of the revelation of God in the creation and see what it might have to offer us in terms of moving toward a new Natural Theology.

First, Brunner rejects theologia naturalis as a self-sufficient, rational system of natural knowledge of God. Here Barth and Brunner agree. Brunner calls forth a new form of Natural Theology relying on our reformed forefathers such as Calvin. Brunner argues the following in Nature and Grace, “God leaves the imprint of his nature upon what he does . . . the creation of the world is at the same time a revelation, a self-communication of God.” Second, Brunner argues for God’s revelation in and through the natural world, as attested in Scripture, not in threatening opposition to revelation in Christ, but as co-incident with it as ordained by God to communicate with his creation. Just as Christ reveals the nature and essence of the Father, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), so the entire created order was made to reveal God,

We have said, it is true, that God, as He is in Himself, is the reason why there is a world at all. God’s being “-as-He-is-in-Himself” is at the same time the will to communicate Himself, His “being-for-us,” before we come into being. It is because He is “for us” that we have been created; it is because He wills to communicate Himself, that the world exists. But the divine decree of Creation is the content of the divine self-revelation.

The latter part of that quote is of great importance here. In Brunner’s hands, a Doctrine of Creation must include that the “divine decree of creation” that is, God speaking the world into existence, must include God’s divine Self-disclosure. Brunner says in The Christian Doctrine of God, “what sort of Creator would not imprint the mark of his Spirit upon his Creation?” Brunner is defending a supremely important doctrine that informs the believer of who God is—the Creator who communicates to his beloved creature. Brunner’s theological understanding of God is one of a divine communicator who out of gracious love an mercy make Himself known. Brunner states, “The God who makes Himself known to us in His revelation, who above all discloses his Name to us in the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ, is the God whose whole revelation is one sole movement of gracious condescension to man, an act of saving mercy.” It is imortant to note that Brunner not only includes God’s revelation in the Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, but also the “whole revelation” of God as an act of God’s loving mercy. Brunner is profoundly clear in his Doctrine of Creation to indicate that God’s revelation is two-fold. He says,“God does not only reveal Himself through his Word in history, but also through his work in creation.” Brunner here is a forerunner of a true Theology of Nature that exceeds and surpasses any previous incarnation of Natural Theology. Brunner’s theology sets aside the erroneous anthropocentric stance of Natural Theology’s claims on man’s independence and places a correct understanding of nature itself. Brunner is making an assertion of what the natural world is. It is not only the stage for the human drama to unfold, and it is not only the summation of mechanisms and structures indicating how it functions and operates. Rather, nature itself is a direct comunication of God. Brunner summarizes this way, “Thus, we now see the connexion between Creation and Revelation. We can only speak of Creation on the basis of Revelation.” In Brunner, we unfold the theological grounds for overcoming the polemic against revelation in nature buried in the Barth-Brunner debate. Brunner makes a clear, biblical, theologically sound argument for the creation revealing divine things of God. Next, with this theological underpinning, we turn to the biblical text to substantiate Brunner’s theological assertions.

Scriptural Exegesis of Nature as Revelation of God

Following Brunner’s lead, we explore how the “divine decree of creation is the content of divine self-revelation.” In what significant ways can we advance the discussion on the grounds that God’s eternal, invisible qualities and divine nature are revealed by God and can be known from the natural world?

To answer this question, let us revisit Romans 1:17–20. In these familiar passages of Scripture, the Apostle Paul expressly uses three different Greek words for “reveal” as follows:

17For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed (ἀποκαλύπ-τεται, apokalyptetai)—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”18The wrath of God is being revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται, apokalyptetai) from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them (φανερὸν, phaneron), because God has made it plain to them (ἐφανέρωσεν, ephanerōsen). 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

In the first two uses (vss. 17, 18) ἀποκαλύπτεται (apokalyptetai) is used to connote the revealing or uncovering of that which was hidden, namely, the righteousness of God and the wrath of God. This use of the word apokalyptetai is found in two other places in the New Testament, both in the context of something revealed that is yet to come (Luke 17:30; 1 Corinthians 3:13). The next two usages (vss. 19, 20) may offer an important distinction in Paul’s underlying meaning in this passage. In verse 19, the Apostle uses φανερὸν (phaneron) and in verse 20 he uses ἐφανέρωσεν (ephanerōsen). Each word holds a specific nuanced meaning and connotation in the Greek and each are used differently throughout the New Testament. The term φανερὸν (phaneron) implies being told information, or information being brought to light. This term is largely used in the Gospels where someone is warned by Jesus “not to tell” (see Matthew 12:16, Mark 3:12, 4:22, 6:14, Luke 8:17). However, ἐφανέρωσεν (ephanerōsen) holds the meaning and connotation of something being manifested, and is used in three other places in the New Testament, each of which refer to Christ manifesting the glory of God (see John 2:11, John 21:1, Titus 1:3). Now, if we extrapolate a bit farther, since in the ancient Greek there is no punctuation, what if the stop of the sentence is NOT after at the end of verse 19, but in the middle? That would significantly change the meaning of these verses so that verses 17–20 may be read this way:

17For in the gospel the righteousness of God is yet to be revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται, apokalyptetai)—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” 18The wrath of God is yet to be revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται, apokalyptetai) from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God has been told to them (φανερὸν, phaneron).[Proposed sentence break here] On the very account that (διότι, dioti) God has manifested (ἐφανέρωσεν (ephanerōsen) to them 20 [that] since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

In this possible alternative exegesis, the idea is that the righteousness and wrath of God are yet to be revealed since what is known of God has been told, by way of dispensing information. But even so, people are still without excuse, because God’s revelation or manifestation of himself (a similar revelation in the Greek to that of his glory revealed in the Son) has been understood from what has been made. By the use of ephanerōsen, the Apostle is distinctly using a form of the word “reveal” that is also the very same word used elsewhere in the New Testament for the revelation of the glory of God in the Incarnate Son. The Apostle seems to have understood God’s revelation in nature as akin to God’s revelation in Christ. Therefore, Barth’s objection to no other ἐφανέρωσεν (ephanerōsen) of God outside of Christ is not true to the Scripture, which states that God ἐφανέρωσεν (ephanerōsen) through what has been made. Likewise, as Barth and Brunner both agree, Natural Theology wrongly assumed that man could find knowledge of God through the scientific discovery of natural world via φανερὸν (phaneron). But, and this is crucially important to a validation of God’s revelation in and through the natural world, Romans 1:20 shows that the mode of revelation of God’s divine nature, being know from what has been made, is ἐφανέρωσεν (ephanerōsen), the very same word in the Greek used for revelation of God in the person of the Incarnate Christ.

Thus, the revelation of God in the natural world and revelation in the incarnate Son are of the same source since both reveal the knowledge and glory of God from “above to below.” These are not two different revelations but one consonant, unified message of the knowledge of God’s attributes and God’s glory, though they function differently. The Son shows us the image of God and manifests his glory, but by being one with the Father, He is of the same essence and has the power to redeem. The creation shows us the image of God and manifests his glory, but since it is not the same essence, the creation cannot redeem, but has been given the power to speak.

If we continue with this line of argumentation, then nature does have the power to convey knowledge of the Holy One, precisely because the Holy One intended it to be so. The debate concerning the validity of natural knowledge of God in relation to revealed knowledge of God is bridged in the sense that God is revealing his own divine attributes through the structures found in nature. It becomes not a contention between natural knowledge of God and revealed knowledge of God, but a unified, consonant natural-revealed knowledge of God. If we return to Brunner’s Doctrine of Creation we find Brunner bridging both natural and revealed knowledge this way: “The world as created by God can only be known through God’s revelation; but as created by God, it is the sphere of legitimate natural, or scientific knowledge.” Brunner strategically makes use of italics in certain key words in the above quote in order to emphasize the role of both revealed and natural knowledge in the created order. First, he says that because the world is created by God (“God” is in italics) it can only be known by revelation (revealed knowledge) since only God can reveal God. Then, he states that since the world is created (note that “created” is in italics) then it holds natural knowledge also in terms of what science discovers. The discussion is advanced showing that scripture indeed affirms that God reveals Himself through that which has been made. Perhaps we can claim, in fact, that Brunner won the debate after all.

Before we leave this discussion, Brunner has one more crucial and fundamental point to add for our consideration. He claims that, “This world is, it is true, the creation of the triune God.” If we concede that God reveals God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature in what has been made, then such a revelation must reveal the Triune God. Paul Molnar states that there is a methodological sophistication of doing “Christian Theology” grounded in the Trinity,

I myself like to think of the doctrine of the Trinity as the ultimate ground of theological knowledge of God, the basic grammar of theology, for it is there that we find our knowledge of God reposing upon the final Reality of God himself, grounded in the ultimate relations intrinsic to God’s own Being, which govern and control all true knowledge of him from beginning to end.

Thus, the next question becomes, can we move beyond Natural Theology into a new Trinitarian Theology of Nature? In order to be true to Romans 1:20, a contemporary Theology of Nature would reveal God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature. Since God’s “divine nature” is triune as Father, Son and Spirit, then it must somehow account for the Trinitarian knowledge of God in the natural world.

. McGrath, Emil Brunner: A Reappraisal, 91.

. Clingerman, “Reading the Book of Nature, 72–91.

. http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/Psalm148.

. McGrath, Emil Brunner: A Reappraisal, 91.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, 132.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, 98.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, 133.

. McGrath, Emil Brunner: A Reappraisal, 116.

. Brunner, and Barth. Natural Theology, 25.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 4.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, 133.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 6.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 12.

. We shall take this up in the final chapter where a constructive proposal is presented that God’s ἐφανέρωσεν (ephanerōsen) to humankind through what has been made is conveyed in two forms: through the embedded messages (types) in the creation as revealed by the findings of science, and in the direct transcendent experience of the divine in the natural world.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 29.

. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 26.

. Molnar, Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian of the Trinity, 32.

↑ Back to top