Introductory notes for readers of this thesis - Theses - Flinders ...

The juxtaposition of two articles—both claiming a Barthian 74 reading of Rahner butarriving at radically different conclusions—demonstrates clearly the effect of personalassessment/interpretation.Paul Molnar, in his comparison between Rahner and Barth’s differing approaches to‘Love of God and love of neighbour’ 75 , uses Barth as a lens to critically evaluate Rahnerwhom he believes has lost—albeit unconsciously—the sense of the objective authority ofscripture and is therefore adrift in a dangerous sea of humanistic, transcendentalsubjectivity.I hope to show that whenever a clear distinction between the love of God and thelove of neighbour is not in evidence, then, theological anthropologyunintentionally tends toward a Pelagian view of the creator/creaturerelationship…it is not the object of Christian faith alone that constantly dictateshis [Rahner’s] theological conclusions; rather it is precisely his attempt to explainthe traditional doctrines according to the tenets of his transcendental method andhis ontology of the symbol that repeatedly cause inconsistency and difficulty for76him .Molnar discusses his belief that Rahner’s essential starting point in his theology is hisphilosophical idea of transcendence rather than the historical/biblical Christ and thescriptures that speak of him. Molnar’s view implies that the whole of Rahner’stheological project is flawed because it opens the door for an understanding of a mysticalparticipation in the life of Christ apart from first encountering the external word andbeing led to repentance by the Spirit through the word. Molnar’s objection reflects anongoing theme in Rahner criticism that views his transcendental apologetic asdiminishing the absolute unique place and function of the scriptures in the revelatoryprocess that leads to Christian salvation.74 Karl Barth, a Protestant contemporary of Karl Rahner, labelled as ‘neo-orthodox’ for his distrust of theliberal, existential approach to theology and known for his high view of the revelatory necessity ofScripture, his low view of natural revelation, and his Christo-centric hermeneutic stance.75 Modern Theology 20 (4) (Oct 2004): 567-99; Molnar sees the difference as essentially that Barth seeslove of neighbour flowing on from the explicit biblical/Christocentric encounter with the love of God,whereas Rahner believes that an encounter with the love of God can be discernedbiblically/Christocentrically from our observation of extraordinary moral activity.76 Ibid, 567 & 568.148