No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-03T12:20:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Adriani Milli.pdf: 1717178 bytes, checksum: ab4d894d16acfce757d4d059aa126d04 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-12-16 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The critique of religion is a recurrent theme on modern thought and appears even in the theology of this period. In this context, the present study focus on the comparison of the critique on religion in Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonheffer s thought. Therefore, the dissertation is organized in four main parts. Initially, it s done a contextualization of the western conception on religion and it s modern critique, including the theological ambit. Next, it s describe the conception and the critiques of religion on Barth and Bonhoeffer`s thought. Finally, a comparison it s made between both authors, on which delineate approximations and dissimilitudes of the critiques on religion of this two theologians. In a broad way, these two critiques indicate distortions of Christianity and proposals of restorations. As a key to comparison is the perception that Barth criticize religion on the perspectives of revelation, whereas Bonhoeffer makes his criticism on the perspective of life.(AU) / A crítica da religião é um tema recorrente no pensamento moderno e aparece até mesmo na teologia desse período. Nesse contexto, o presente estudo procura comparar a crítica da religião no pensamento de Karl Barth e Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Para tanto, a dissertação está organizada em quatro partes principais. Inicialmente, é feita uma contextualização da concepção ocidental de religião e sua crítica moderna, inclusive no âmbito teológico. A seguir são descritas a concepção e a crítica da religião no pensamento de Barth e Bonhoeffer. Finalmente, é realizada uma comparação entre ambos, que procura delinear aproximações e distanciamentos da crítica da religião desses dois teólogos. De maneira ampla, as duas críticas apontam distorções do Cristianismo e indicam propostas de restauração. Como chave geral de comparação está a percepção de que Barth critica a religião n a perspectiva da revelação enquanto Bonhoeffer faz sua crítica na perspectiva da vida.(AU)

[pt] A presente dissertação se propõe a fazer uma síntese teológica da teologia da graça em Santo Agostinho e da teologia dialética de Karl Barth. E mostrar que, embora os dois tenham usado de base a carta de Paulo aos Romanos para fundamentarem suas respectivas teologias, usaram epistemologias completamente diferentes. Nossa pesquisa tencionar mostrar que, enquanto Santo Agostinho fazia todas as coisas dependerem da Graça Divina, creditando a Cristo o mérito de tudo, Karl Barth ontologizou demais o tema do pecado. Nossa pesquisa objetiva mostrar que, embora os dois trabalharam demais as palavras pecado e redenção, palavras essas que gravitam em toda história da salvação, o escopo da teologia de Santo Agostinho está na graça. Enquanto que, Karl Barth deu mais ênfase a questão do pecado e seu efeito catastrófico, que estabeleceu uma crise entre Deus e o homem. Daí a teologia da crise. Mas também a teologia dialética, que acontece através de uma autodoação e uma autocomunicação entre Deus e a humanidade, pois o Não-Deus foi superado a partir do sim pronunciado através da obra de Cristo. / [en] The present research proposes to make a theological synthesis of the theology of grace in Saint Augustine and the dialectical theology of Karl Barth. And to show that, although the two used Paul s letter to the Romans as a basis to support their respective theologies, they used completely different epistemologies. Our research is intented to show that while St. Augustine made all things depend on Divine Grace, crediting Christ with the merit of everything, Karl Barth over- ontologized the theme of sin. Our research aims to show that, although the two worked too hard on the words sin and redemption, words that gravitate throughout salvation history, the scope of St. Augustine s theology is in grace. Meanwhile, Karl Barth placed more emphasis on the issue of sin and its catastrophic effect, which established a crisis between God and man. Hence the theology of crisis. But also dialectical theology, which takes place through self-giving and self-communication between God and humanity, since the Not-God was overcome from the yes pronounced through the works of Christ.

This thesis provides a complete, chronological view of Barth’s concept of history throughout his theological career. The purpose of undertaking this hitherto unattempted task is to demonstrate that, ever since his full engagement with dogmatics in the mid-1920s, Barth has unequivocally affirmed the reality of the history which revelation becomes and is. Though he continues to insist upon the transcendence of revelation, he does so by way of an increasingly christocentric theology, so that both divine sovereignty and human dignity are firmly upheld. This is especially evident in his later theology, with his concentration on the history of Jesus Christ on the basis of the doctrine of election. This thesis thus rejects both the charge that Barth’s theology is ahistorical or anti-historical on the one hand, and the charge that it is excessively historical on the other.

La présente dissertation se propose d'étudier la problématique de l'unicité et de l'universalité de Jésus-Christ dans la christologie contemporaine. Le choix de ce thème a été motivé par le fait que pendant ces dernières années la confrontation avec le pluralisme culturel et religieux a conduit la théologie chrétienne à réfléchir de manière nouvelle sur cette question. Elle porte sur le christianisme en tant qu'il a pour spécificité de rendre témoignage à un homme confessé comme le Fils unique de Dieu et le Sauveur de tous les hommes. Dans ce sens, la finalité de notre recherche est de montrer la signification et la portée de l'affirmation de Jésus-Christ comme unique Médiateur de notre salut, et ce dans le cadre de la théologie fondamentale et en particulier de la christologie. Bien que cette doctrine ait été toujours et soit encore une pierre d'achoppement pour ceux qui ne partagent pas notre foi, elle représente pour la tradition chrétienne plus qu'une croyance centrale, elle est vue comme le fondement même de la foi. Pour montrer la pertinence du sujet traité, ainsi que les chemins à suivre afin de proposer de nouvelles perspectives pour la réflexion théologique, notre point de départ est l'analyse du phénomène de la multiplication des modèles interprétatifs concernant le rapport entre le christianisme et les autres religions. Les recherches menées par Peter Schineller, Joseph Gelot, Paul Knitter, Camil Ménard et Jacques Dupuis dans ce domaine, nous ont permis de nous familiariser avec le vocabulaire utilisé dans la discussion (exclusivisme, inclusivisme, pluralisme, etc.) et de percevoir les possibles relations entre les modèles proposés. Du point de vue de notre travail, ces analyses montrent d'une part que la question christologique se trouve au cœur du débat, et d'autre part que l'enjeu de celui-ci se situe dans la manière dont les théologiens cités comme représentants de chaque modèle, chacun à partir de ses propres présupposés, traitent la question de l'unicité et de l'universalité du Christ. C'est cette double constatation qui nous a amené à choisir d'étudier la pensée de cinq théologiens contemporains: Karl Barth, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner et John Hick. La partie conclusive de la thèse expose les perspectives christologiques qui se dégagent de la recherche. Elle offre une esquisse élaborée avec la conviction que la christologie ne se limite pas à offrir un répertoire d'opinions sur le Christ, mais qu'elle est une réflexion dynamique et attentive aux défis qui lui sont adressés. Notre étude conduit, d'une part, à une prise de distance critique vis-à-vis des modèles ou catégories qui sont proposés aujourd'hui pour expliquer la pluralité d'opinions concernant l'unicité et l'universalité de Jésus-Christ. Ils ont certainement une pertinence pédagogique, ensemble ils constituent une sorte de carte géographique qui offre des points de repères dans un terrain devenu assez complexe. Néanmoins cette «nouvelle vulgate», selon l'expression de G. Comeau, qui a fortement marqué les esprits, perd de sa pertinence lorsqu'elle est considérée comme l'exposé d'une «évolution naturelle» dans le débat. D'autre part, l'examen de la théologie des auteurs permet d'identifier les présupposés christologiques qui doivent être pris en compte pour traiter la question de l'unicité et de l'universalité du Christ. Premièrement, l'universel concret, parce que la christologie est appelée à réfléchir sur les polarités dialectiques qui caractérisent le mystère: l'Absolu et le fini, l'Universel et le concret, l'humanité et la divinité; deuxièmement le christocentrisme, qui permet une révalorisation de l'histoire du salut comme horizon théologique propre de la place du Christ dans le projet de Dieu; enfin la relation entre personne et mission de Jésus-Christ, qui témoigne du tournant sotériologique opéré dans la christologie contemporaine et qui met en évidence la manière dont l'homme participe à la vie divine. Nous avons identifié aussi deux éléments qui caractérisent le Christ comme unique et universel: l'affirmation de Jésus-Christ comme Médiateur de la volonté salvifique universel de Dieu, et l'incarnation par laquelle s'exprime l'identité personnelle de Jésus.

This thesis aims to contribute to an answer to the question, “What would a philosophy, and more specifically, an ethics, based on Christ, look like?” My first contention is that we find, in the ethical thinking of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, two particularly radical and complementary attempts to point toward Christ as the basis or foundation of any genuine ethics. What sets the views of Barth and Bonhoeffer apart from many of the other philosophical and theological approaches to ethics, is the extent to which they seek to take seriously the ethical implications of the gospel – the revelation of God's grace in the Word and work of Jesus Christ – for ethics. My second contention is that, even if we follow neither Barth nor Bonhoeffer in the detailed outworking of the character of a Christologically grounded ethics, we nevertheless cannot avoid facing the radical challenge each of these men poses, in their own related but distinct ways, that in thinking about ethics we must take Christ as our standard and foundation. In the first two chapters, on Barth and Bonhoeffer respectively, I identify the structure and content of their arguments and display their textual basis in the texts most relevant to the topic, namely Barth’s Church Dogmatics and Bonhoeffer’s Ethics. I also present an outline of the character of a Christologically-grounded ethics as each of these theologians derives it from its Christological basis. In the third chapter I examine the cogency of their arguments.

This thesis aims to contribute to an answer to the question, “What would a philosophy, and more specifically, an ethics, based on Christ, look like?” My first contention is that we find, in the ethical thinking of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, two particularly radical and complementary attempts to point toward Christ as the basis or foundation of any genuine ethics. What sets the views of Barth and Bonhoeffer apart from many of the other philosophical and theological approaches to ethics, is the extent to which they seek to take seriously the ethical implications of the gospel – the revelation of God's grace in the Word and work of Jesus Christ – for ethics. My second contention is that, even if we follow neither Barth nor Bonhoeffer in the detailed outworking of the character of a Christologically grounded ethics, we nevertheless cannot avoid facing the radical challenge each of these men poses, in their own related but distinct ways, that in thinking about ethics we must take Christ as our standard and foundation. In the first two chapters, on Barth and Bonhoeffer respectively, I identify the structure and content of their arguments and display their textual basis in the texts most relevant to the topic, namely Barth’s Church Dogmatics and Bonhoeffer’s Ethics. I also present an outline of the character of a Christologically-grounded ethics as each of these theologians derives it from its Christological basis. In the third chapter I examine the cogency of their arguments.

Thesis (B.A.)--Wheaton College, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral--Inaug. diss.)--Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen, 1984. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 385-408).

Habilitationsschrift--Kiel, 1973. / Includes bibliographical references and indexes.