Nein!(?) A negative "point of contact" in the Epistle to Diognetus?
Still working on The Epistle to Diognetus, which keeps making associations to modern theology pop up. This time it's Karl Barth's debate with Emil Brunner. Consider the epistle's claim that,
At any rate, in this aspect The Epistle to Diognetus is quite similar to Irenæus who writes that,
Now, how is this reminiscent of the Barth-Brunner debate? In his essay "Nein!", Karl Barth famously argued against Emil Brunner, that "[e]very attempt to assert a general revelation [natural theology] has to be rejected. [...] There is no point of contact for the redeeming action of God.” Only through God's own particular revelation does Man become aware of his sin (as in Irenæus). So what Barth said no! to was Brunner's claim, that there must be a "point of contact" (some potential in Man?) that makes us able to hear the revelation of God.
In the Epistle to Diognetus it seems that there is actually such a “point of contact”, but only negatively. It is fairly obvious that it is God who “demonstrates” (ἐλέγξᾱς) the inability of human nature to obtain life by itself. This demonstration is not neutral, since ἐλέγχω means to demonstrate in the negative sense, to reproof or refute (LSJ). But God does not reproof actively, but by holding back, by hiding himself (a passive general revelation, so to speak). God demonstrates the inability of humankind to save itself by not saving it. This is how we were "convicted in the past time by our own deeds" (9.1). It is still God who reproofs humankind. But human beings come to know their sinfulness (our inability to attain life) as the result of vain attempts at attaining life by their own deeds. This experience indeed forms a “point of contact”, though perhaps as a negative 'synergism' (?).
Now, I may not have studied the Barth-Brunner controversy well enough (actually not having read Nein!, sorry). But what confuses is that Barth himself seems to be saying something of this kind in his commentary on Romans:
“[...]being convicted in the past time by our own deeds as unworthy of life, we might now be made deserving by the goodness of God, and having made clear our inability to enter into the kingdom of God of ourselves, might be enabled by the ability of God.” (9.1, Lightfoot)and
“Having then in the former time demonstrated the inability of our nature to obtain life, and having now revealed a Saviour able to save even creatures which have no ability, He willed that for both reasons we should believe in His goodness[...]” (9.6, Lightfoot)If by 'dialectical theology' we mean that God's 'yes' and 'no' are inseparable (Tillich), this is certainly a specimen of such. The two elements, negative and positive, come together in faith (in an Aufhebung!), or?
At any rate, in this aspect The Epistle to Diognetus is quite similar to Irenæus who writes that,
But there is an important difference between the two: Irenæus seems to be claiming that it is the positive revelation of Christ that itself leads to (implies) the negative knowledge that humankind cannot save itself. In contrast to this, The Epistle to Diognetus seems to be saying that such negative knowledge is brought about ”in the former time” (9.6), i.e. before God’s positive revelation of his Son. To put it shortly, God didn't send us a saviour until we had realized that we needed one."God had mercy upon His creation, and bestowed upon them a new salvation through His Word, that is, Christ, so that men might learn by experience that they cannot attain to incorruption of themselves, but by God's grace only." (Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 21.3).
Irenæus (130-202)
 |
| Brunner and Barth (on the verge of exploding with a loud 'Nein!') |
In the Epistle to Diognetus it seems that there is actually such a “point of contact”, but only negatively. It is fairly obvious that it is God who “demonstrates” (ἐλέγξᾱς) the inability of human nature to obtain life by itself. This demonstration is not neutral, since ἐλέγχω means to demonstrate in the negative sense, to reproof or refute (LSJ). But God does not reproof actively, but by holding back, by hiding himself (a passive general revelation, so to speak). God demonstrates the inability of humankind to save itself by not saving it. This is how we were "convicted in the past time by our own deeds" (9.1). It is still God who reproofs humankind. But human beings come to know their sinfulness (our inability to attain life) as the result of vain attempts at attaining life by their own deeds. This experience indeed forms a “point of contact”, though perhaps as a negative 'synergism' (?).
Now, I may not have studied the Barth-Brunner controversy well enough (actually not having read Nein!, sorry). But what confuses is that Barth himself seems to be saying something of this kind in his commentary on Romans:
"Whenever the Gentiles grow sceptical of the righteousness of men, there is exposed to them the righteousness of God." (Barth's Epistle to the Romans, p. 66)So, was it only a 'positive' "point of contact" that Barth cried 'no!' to? Or is it really Brunner and the Epistle to Diognetus vs. Irenæus and Barth?