Description
This book examines Balthasar's engagement with Protestantism, primarily in the persons of Martin Luther and Karl Barth, a topic which has not yet been given the attention it deserves. Furthermore, instead of focusing on particular theological issues, such as soteriology or ecclesiology, the book examines the implications of this engagement for Fundamental Theology.
At the very root of Luther's confrontation with the Catholic Church of the Late Middle Ages, lies his antipathy for Aristotle and for "natural theology." In other words, the Protestant difference has as much to do with its suspicion of the treatment of faith and reason in Catholic thought as it does of the Catholic treatment of faith and works.
This is a suspicion that is only exacerbated in Barth's identification of the "analogy of being" with the Antichrist. Balthasar takes these criticisms very seriously, and, in addressing them, not only has much of relevance to say to the Catholic-Protestant differences, but also has much to say to the Yale-Chicago differences. In short, this study treats primarily Balthasar's dialogue with Luther and Barth, with the hope that this dialogue will shed light on the impasse that seems to have arisen between the so-called "correlation" and "revelocentric" schools of contemporary theology. If, indeed, Christ is the "concrete universal," then we shouldn't have to decide between the two. Part of this proposal, then, is to emphasize the fact that Balthasar refuses to separate Fundamental and Dogmatic theology.
Author(s)
Rodney Howsare, Rodney A. Howsare is Associate Professor of Fundamental Theology, DeSales University, Center Valley, Pennsylvania, USA.
Reviews
"This study is a welcome addition to the growing library of books on von Balthasar."
"in setting out so clearly and systematically the ecumenical origins and influences upon his theology, Howsare's book makes a notable contribution to the interpretation of von Balthasar and his wider reception across the ecumenical scene."
Stephen Wigley,
“This study shatters any attempt to place Balthasar neatly into oppositional categories, such as ‘revelocentric’ over ‘correlational’ or ‘conservative’ over ‘liberal’. In fact, Howsare’s suggestion that Balthasar presents a ‘revelocentric-correlational’ theology is, in my estimation, the most satisfying description to date of the thrust of the Swiss thinker’s thought…The author ends the book with the following thought: ‘If I have enticed the reader to take a new look at Balthasar by presenting him in a dialogical light, then I feel this study will have accomplished its purpose’ (p. 165). This reviewer has been enticed and is convinced that others will be too.”
Randall S. Rosenberg, Heythrop Journal
,
Reviewed in Bollettino ballthasariano, 2006
Andre Marie-Jerumanis,