Paradigm Deliberation

Eng_Thomas, Günter_Karl Barths Radikalisierung des lutherischen Solus Christus

A Deliberation of Interpretive Paradigms for 'Solus Christus': Luther, Barth, and Beyond

Text Under Review: Thomas, Günter. “Karl Barths Radikalisierung des lutherischen ‚Solus Christus‘.” ZDTh 32, no. 2 (2016): 35–49. Focus of Analysis: To comparatively analyze the foundational presuppositions, explanatory gains and costs, and theological risks of the three core interpretive paradigms for the concept of solus Christus that emerge from Günter Thomas’s essay.

Paradigm Map

This deliberation focuses on three competing paradigms for understanding the theological status of solus Christus:

  1. Paradigm A: The Dualistic Paradigm of Luther

    • This paradigm is defined by the core tension between the merciful God revealed in Christ and the inscrutable, majestic 'Hidden God' (Deus absconditus) who sovereignly works behind and beyond this revelation.

  2. Paradigm B: The Christological Monism of Barth

    • This is a unified system that identifies God's self-determination in Christ with God's very being, thereby eliminating a priori the sphere of the 'Hidden God.'

  3. Paradigm C: The Dynamic-Receptive Paradigm (implied by Thomas)

    • This is an attempt to maintain Barth’s Christological unity while creating space for God's genuine receptivity (Rezeptivität) to and interaction with the contingency of the created world.

Foundational Presuppositions by Paradigm

  • Paradigm A (Luther):

    • God's absolute freedom precedes His act of revelation and is not fully contained or exhausted by it.
    • The human subject must exercise faith within a dual reality of soteriological certainty (in Christ) and existential anxiety (before the hidden God).
    • Theology ought to reflect the ambiguity of existential experience more honestly than it pursues systematic coherence.

  • Paradigm B (Barth):

    • God's being is His act, and this act is His eternal self-decision in Jesus Christ.
    • Freedom is not unqualified potentiality but concrete self-determination in love.
    • Revelation is not a partial disclosure of God but is identical with God Himself. Christology is the axiom for all theological statements.

  • Paradigm C (Thomas's Implication):

    • God's eternal self-decision is not a closed system but includes an openness for the sake of a genuine relationship with the created world.
    • Love, in its essence, includes not only unilateral action but also a receptive dimension that is affected by the reality of the other.
    • The event of the incarnation adds a new experience to God Himself and is thus part of the immanent dynamics of the divine life.

Explanatory Gains and Costs

| Paradigm | Explanatory Gains | Interpretive Consequences (Price to be Paid) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | A. Luther | - Powerfully accounts for extreme existential experiences such as the inscrutability of evil and suffering, and the sense of divine abandonment.<br>- Maintains a theological humility that situates theology within the limits of human reason. | - Relativizes the comfort offered by solus Christus, exposing faith to constant anxiety and terror.<br>- Opens the possibility of an internal contradiction in God, thereby potentially weakening the foundation of trust. | | B. Barth | - Imparts tremendous coherence and unity to the theological system.<br>- Provides absolute assurance of God's total grace and faithfulness through the principle of 'Christ alone.'<br>- Radically resolves the dualistic tension of the Lutheran paradigm. | - Risks making sin and evil appear as necessary elements within God's eternal plan (theodicy problem).<br>- Can diminish the genuine contingency of human history and freedom, potentially reducing everything to a predetermined drama. | | C. Dynamic-Receptive | - Seeks to secure God's genuine empathy and relationality with the world while maintaining Barth's Christological center.<br>- Treats sin and suffering as 'contingent' rather than 'necessary,' emphasizing God's dynamic work of overcoming them. | - Risks clashing with classical divine attributes such as immutability and aseity.<br>- If the concept of 'receptivity' is not carefully defined, it could devolve into a finite, processual deity who is determined by the world. |

Theological and Ethical Risks

  • Paradigm A (Luther):
    • Risk: Can foster a passive fatalism or religious anxiety. The inscrutable will of the 'hidden God' could be misused to justify injustice or violence in the world.
  • Paradigm B (Barth):
    • Risk: Can 'resolve' the problem of suffering too quickly in theological terms, thereby becoming insensitive to the concrete experience of the sufferer. The proposition that "all things are God's ways" could weaken the impetus for resisting present evils.
  • Paradigm C (Thomas's Implication):
    • Risk: Can weaken trust in God's power as the ultimate judge and redeemer of history by portraying God as vulnerable and passive. Carries the risk of romanticizing divine suffering.

Deliberation Summary

The paradigm contestation illuminated by Günter Thomas's argument can be summarized as a concatenated process of theological problem-solving. Luther's paradigm secured existential honesty at the cost of leaving a deep fissure of theological dualism. Karl Barth sutured this fissure with the powerful synthesis of 'Christological monism,' maximizing theological coherence and the assurance of salvation. This suture, however, was achieved at the cost of too smoothly incorporating the autonomy of the world and the reality of suffering into God's eternal plan.

The questions posed by Thomas, therefore, probe the possibility of a third way for post-Barthian theology: the 'dynamic-receptive' paradigm. This represents an attempt to recover a vision of God and the world as genuinely open to one another in a relational reality, without surrendering Barth's theological unity. Ultimately, this deliberation makes clear that the terrain of theological debate has shifted. The question has moved from "Is there another God behind Christ?" (Luther vs. Barth) to "How does the God revealed in Christ truly relate to this contingent world?" (Barth vs. Beyond). Each paradigm functions as a powerful solution to a specific theological problem, while simultaneously operating as a provisional hypothesis that generates new questions.

Boundary Compliance and Verification Note: This report is exclusively a Paradigm Deliberation and does not render a final value judgment on the superiority of any single paradigm. The analysis is focused on impartially comparing the internal logic, presuppositions, and implications of each paradigm.