# Emil Brunner



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 25, 2008)

I have to read his:








For PTS this fall. Can anyone tell me much about him other than he was a contemporary of Barth?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 25, 2008)

Brunner was not just Barth's contemporary, he was (along with the Niebuhrs) the leading neo-orthodox thinker in America. Unlike Barth, Brunner saw the value in natural theology. Barth responded with his famous "Nein to Emil Brunner." You will enjoy the fact that compared to Barth, Brunner is MUCH more succinct.

Here is a quick summary:



> Emil Brunner separated himself from liberalism by rejecting its false view of Jesus, its belief in the goodness of man, and its optimism concerning establishment of the kingdom. Brunner also brought a new, biblical return to a declaration of man’s sinfulness and the need for faith and responsible Christian conduct. He focused on the historic Christological doctrines of the incarnation and the resurrection.
> 
> Brunner’s weaknesses involved his denial of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures; he also denied the historicity of Adam and Genesis 3. While Brunner was strong in his affirmation of Christological doctrine, he denied the virgin birth. Brunner also denied the reality of hell.
> 
> Enns, P. P. (1997, c1989). The Moody handbook of theology (565). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 25, 2008)

Barth was famous for his murky writing style (to go with his murky theology, natch).

The joke always was, in those days, that people claimed to read Barth, but they really read Brunner. Brunner's writing style was a model of clarity compared to his gaseous compatriot. The theology was just as bad, but at least you could understand what he said.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 26, 2008)

If you want to understand Brunner, you have to understand Schleiermacher.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 26, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> If you want to understand Brunner, you have to understand Schleiermacher.



Being at a mainline seminary I understand Schleiermacher (and Rauschenbusch) all to well.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 26, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> For PTS this fall. Can anyone tell me much about him other than he was a contemporary of Barth?




You may want to pick up some of Gordon H. Clark's books. He deals a lot with Bruner. If you want specific recommendations, look on the Trinity Foundation's website and search for Bruner. You may find several books that deal with him. If not, I can look over my library of Clark, and let you know which ones to look into. Clark was contemporary with Bruner and Barth, and was a Calvinist.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## yeutter (Jul 26, 2008)

Brunner denied the Virgin Birth of our Lord. Barth affirmed the Lord's Virgin Birth. Why did they differ at this critical juncture? Barth had a well developed understanding of suprahistory and denied all natural revelation. Brunner is less clear on the supra faith history distinction from a history rooted in real space and real time.


----------

