It hinges on the resurrection

But further: since Paul first expressed it, the Christian Church knows that everything depends on belief in the Resurrection. “If Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” A Jesus who had not risen, who had remained in the grave, could not be the Christ. The Resurrection is the necessary vindication of His Messiahship. It is true that the disciples believed in Him as Messiah before His Resurrection; this comes out very clearly in Peter’s Confession at Caesarea Philippi. But this faith did not survive the terrible shock of Calvary. Without the fact of Easter the world would scarcely have heard either of a Church, or of Jesus Himself. It was the encounter with the Risen Lord which rescued the disciples from their perplexity and hopelessness, restored their broken faith, and more than this, filled them with jubilant certainty of victory, which was, and remained, the vital element in the Primitive Church, and gave the first Christians the power to be in the full difficult sense of the word “martyrs” for the truth of Christ.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 366

<idle musing>
Indeed. Well, that's the final excerpt from vol. 2. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. I'm definitely going to read his third volume, but not right away. Hopefully I'll get around to it in the next year. Meanwhile, the next book in N. T. Wright, Simply Christian, his version of an apologetic for Christianity. After that, I'm not sure yet…
</idle musing>

The doctrine of the two natures

With the doctrine that Jesus is the God-Man, theological thought returns from the sphere “beyond history” to the Historical. We only spoke of the Eternal Son, the Logos, and of the Incarnation, because Jesus is the historical man, the God-Man. We only see Him as a figure in history aright when we see Him as the God-Man, when we see Him as the One who is the Eternal Son become Man, true God, of one substance with the Father. But also we only see him aright as He really is when, while insisting that He is “True God”, we do not forget the other point—which, indeed, from the historical point of view comes first—that at the same time He is “True Man". This is what the doctrine of the Two Natures is trying to express, and which was expressed, in lapidary simplicity, for the first time, by the Confessio Augustana: “Vere Deus, vere homo.”—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 355

The mystery of the incarnation

None of them says anything about “how” the Incarnation took place: they simply witness to the fact of the Incarnation.

This might serve as a hint to the theologian not to want to know too much about “how” these things can be, and to abandon all subtle considerations and distinctions. It will be sufficient for us to say that the order of knowledge—that in the historical Revealer, we know the Eternal Son of God—corresponds to an order of being, which goes in the opposite direction: that the Eternal Son became man, that He who is from everlasting entered into human history, that it is precisely this entrance into history which constitutes the basis of His threefold work. All that goes further than this is useless speculation.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 351–52

Immanuel!

No prophet ever said that he had “come”; he says that the Word of God has “come” to him; by this he means the divine transcendence, which is from “above”, the sphere which lies beyond all human possibilities, the divine world, God Himself. The fact that “God comes” is one of the fundamental facts of the Biblical revelation. This revelation deals always and everywhere with God’s coming to man, and is in harmony with the idea of the “coming” Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God, the Rule of God, is not at first “present”, because men are living in separation from God, in sin. The coming of the Kingdom of God is the coming of the self-revelation and sovereignty of God, and of the redemption of man. Therefore the Promise proclaimed by the Prophets culminates in the announcement of the Messiah, in whom alone God’s saving presence culminates as the dwelling of God with His people: “I will be your God and you shall be My people”— “I am with you”, “Emmanuel”.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 350–51

A true Christology

If Jesus be really Reconciler and Lord, then He is God. Faith knows that this is what He is. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” And this divine existence, this truly revealing, truly reconciling, and truly ruling force, is not an impersonal Word, given by God, a power inspired by God, but it is the Person of Jesus Himself. This is the very heart of the truth of Jesus as the Christ, that in Him God really meets us, and that this meeting with God is itself based upon the personal being of Jesus, and is one with Him. Jesus is the One in whom God meets us personally—not impersonally.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 348–49

Arianism as paganism in disguise

The ecclesiastical rejection of this doctrine is therefore justified and necessary, because Arianism posits a created being, the Son, who is divine, and because it implies a divine Being whose divinity is not genuine, but who is only partially divine, a semi-divine being, midway between the creature and God. This, however, is simply the fundamental idea of all paganism: the deification of creatures, continuity between God and the creation, the semi-divine, a transcendence which is not genuine transcendence. The Son may be “divine”; but He is not God; He may stand over against us men as One who comes to us “from the other side”, from “above” , but He comes from a higher region which is not God. Thus since we men meet the Son in Jesus, we do not really meet God, but an “interim-being”, who comes “from above”, it is true, but is a “creature” just as we are.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 348

What is the purpose of the Bible?

According to the Biblical conception of faith we believe in Jesus as the Christ not because it is taught to us by the Church or in the Bible, but because He, Jesus. the Christ, meets us as the true Word of God in the witness of the Scriptures. We do not believe in Jesus the Son of God because the Bible teaches this, but we believe in the Bible because, and, in so far as, through it we have come to know Jesus as the Christ. The Bible is not the authority, on the basis of which we believe in Christ, but the Bible is the means, which shows us and gives us the Christ. We cannot believe in Jesus the Christ without the Bible; but we should not believe in Jesus the Son of God because the Bible says so. Because, and in so far as, the Bible communicates Christ to us, it is the Word of God, and it has a share in the authority of Jesus Christ. But it is never the axiomatic basis of our Christian Faith.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 342 (emphasis original)

Only a man? What would that mean?

But if Jesus is only a man, then His death on the Cross, and indeed His whole life, has no reconciling significance, and “we are yet in our sins”. If Jesus is only a man, then His word of forgiveness has no value for us. No <>man<> can know whether God forgives. Either Jesus could say this in virtue of a prophetic revelation, or He could say it because He Himself knew it, because He Himself came to us out of the mystery of the Father. Jesus’ whole life, which is fulfilled in His Passion and Death and does not merely <>end<> there, is full of the authority of Him, who, in the very authority and power of God, not only proclaimed reconciliation but accomplished it, and His resurrection, moreover, revealed His divine power of reconciliation. To know this, and thus to know the action and sufferings of Jesus as God’s reconciling Act, means to believe in Jesus, the God-Man.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 338

The cross is a catastrophe

Apart from the Resurrection Christ’s death on the Cross is a catastrophe, not a saving fact. The faith of the disciples in the Messiah was shaken by the crucifixion, until the appearance of the Risen Lord gave them back their faith in Christ, and at the same time fulfilled it. Then they were able to say, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”, and this confession of faith fulfilled what they had already seen in the life of the Lord as the divine activity of the Saviour.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 335

Reconciliation accomplished

Jesus does not merely speak of reconciliation, He effects it, with divine authority. His whole life is the establishment of fellowship between God and man.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 337

The prophet

The prophets are revealers of the will of God, and of God’s nature, because they receive a Word of particular, transcendent revelation, a Word of God, which no human being could attain by his own efforts, and this “Word” is wholly independent of their personality. God chooses whom He will, as the instrument of His revelation. No human being, as such, is qualified to be a prophet; a prophet becomes one through something that happens, a call and an enabling from God. From time to time he receives a Word of God, which he has to proclaim with divine authority, not thanks to anything that he is, but thanks to God’s free communication. The authority lies wholly in the divine communication. The Word of the prophets contains, of course, also “general ethical truth” but it is not this, but something outside this sphere of what is common to man, which makes their Word a “revealed” Word. The moral laws, as such, are also known to the heathen; the new element of special revelation is their message of judgment and of promise. The Prophets are not teachers of true morals and piety, but they are men who proclaim the will of God, until then unknown to men, as men, here and now. Hence the Prophets speak with divine authority, but with an authority which does not belong to their personality, but to the Word given to them.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 333

Closing one's eyes

Those who do not close their eyes to the actual Jesus of History, who do not evade Him, but respond to His claim, can do no other than confess with Peter: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Those who refuse to bear this witness cannot appeal to historical reasons. The refusal of this witness can only be based on one’s general “philosophy of life”, not on history. But if this frequently occurs then it can only be that our “world-view” unconsciously affects our historical judgment, and obscures our historical insight. What is really at stake is not the claim of historical truth against dogmatic prejudice—as will be maintained—but, quite simply, faith or unbelief. The fact that this is so will, however, only be recognized by faith; unbelief will always find excuses for this state of affairs, and will feel obliged to justify itself on “intellectual” grounds.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 327

<idle musing>
Yep. It's always the case. You don't want someone telling you what to do, so you create an intellectual excuse. Doesn't matter whether it's God or a boss or the gov't. Gotta find an excuse to "just be me."

Not much changed since the garden, eh? : (
</idle musing>

More on the kingdom of God

Now it is a mistake, often committed by those who take this line in theology, to maintain that in the theory of the Two Realms—that is, in their distinction between the Gospel and the Law—the Reformers proclaimed that the world, and above all the State, is “autonomous”. This could only be the case if they did not declare the law of God to be binding on the State; Luther certainly never said this; at the most, the only people who might have said something of this kind would be neo-Lutheran romantics and nationalists. On the other hand, these “Christological” theologians would only be justified in their reproach, if they believed in a State which could be governed by the Gospel of Grace, and not by means of compulsory law—which would be pure fanaticism, or if they gave up saying that the real Kingdom of Christ is only achieved through the Word. For the State will never, never be governed by the Word—in the sense of the Gospel—but exclusively by the word of the Law, quite simply by the Decalogue, which is not the actual “Word", of Christ.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 318

Christians and the State

The nature of the State is in opposition to the nature of the Agape of Jesus. Where there are police, whose duty it is to arrest criminals, and armies, arsenals Of weapons of war, penitentiaries, etc;——and where would a State be without these necessary aids to its rule?—evidently Jesus Christ is not “ruling”, save in the hearts of individual persons, who as believing Christians, want to serve Christ within this State. The existence of the State as an institution is itself a Sign of the fact that Christ’s rule over men is not yet realized. We human beings need an order of the State, with police, soldiers, and compulsory laws, precisely because, and in so far as Christ does not rule over us. For the true rule of Christ is identical with free and generous love, free obedience to God, while the necessity for the dominion of the State always and everywhere points to the fact that men do not willingly do what is necessary for the well-being of all. The true dominion of Christ, and what we call the State, are fundamentally opposed.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 302

<idle musing>
This is something that the so-called christian nationalists need to learn. You can't establish the kingdom of God on earth by force. It must well up from each heart. And I personally believe that can't happen until Christ comes again to establish his kingdom.

Of course, that doesn't mean we should just sit back and do nothing! We need to strive to establish justice and deliverance for the captive, but we also need to know that it is all partial—and fully by the power of God.
</idle musing>

I will be your God

Through the word of the Cross received in faith, the new man, the man who serves God, is created, who no longer lives on himself and for himself, but on and for the love of God. This alone is true divine rule, where God rules through the free obedience of those who trust and love Him. Where the love of God actually reigns in the human heart the opposition between God’s will and the self-will of the creature has been overcome; there it has become true: “I will be your God, and ye shall be My people.”—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 300

The goal of history

This is the goal of all history, that at last the will of God shall be done, that at last the King will have an obedient people. “Ye are my people; I am your God.” This is the personalistic fundamental feature of the Biblical view of God. Certainly, as in every religion, “salvation” is important, but this “salvation” consists in unity of will with, and personal communion between, God and man. Everything else is secondary, or is merely a conclusion drawn from this truth.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 298

<idle musing>
Unfortunately, that truth seems to have been lost, with the emphasis now being placed on "fixing" this world—whether from the right or the left. Yes, social action is important, although I would take issue with more than a few things that some are pushing—especially "christian nationalism," which is not Christian at all. But, far more important is why we were created in the first place: communion with God.
</idle musing>

Wrath? Love? Which is it? (Brunner)

God’s wrath cannot be compared with God’s love; for God’s love is His nature, but His wrath is never, and in no sense, His nature. It is His relation to the sinner so long as the sinner does not believe. It is not an error about which man needs to be “enlightened”, it is not the product of a primitive “anthropomorphic” idea of God, but it is something real, which can only be removed by the real event of the death of Christ on the Cross, and by faith in Him. It is the reality in which sinful man lives, until through faith in the Cross of the Son of God he is actually led out of it. It has the same reality as the law, as the guilt and the curse of the law. It is as real as the Passion of Jesus. It is the effect of sin, that God must seem to the sinner to be angry, that he comes under the curse of the law. Sin creates a reality, which lies between the love of God and man, and man cannot remove this real obstacle; God alone can do this. This removal of the reality of wrath is the Atonement.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 297

Anselm's theory of atonement and its flaws (Brunner)

Anselm’s theory of “satisfaction” claims to be an adequate, completely sufficient expression, which does not need to be complemented by any other ideas—it does not even allow for them—whereas for the writers of the New Testament the variety of conceptions and expressions points to the fact that none of these expressions in themselves are regarded as sufficient, but that all, as figurative expressions, are intended to point to a fact which by its very nature can never be fully understood. Further, the rationalistic form of the proof, and the spirit of calculation, is contrary to the outlook of the Bible. Finally, and this is by far the most important point—the theory of Anselm is purely objective in character. Whereas Abelard lays all the emphasis upon the subjective reaction of man, Anselm’s theory does not mention man’s faith at all, whereas the New Testament always regards both the atoning event and faith as indissolubly united. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” “Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by His blood . . . that He might Himself be just and the Justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.” In the New Testament reconciliation in Christ is “truth as encounter”—just as much as every other part of the Faith; with Anselm, on the contrary, it is rational objective truth, which can be understood. If we look at this question from the opposite end, from God’s standpoint, it means: that whereas in Anselm’s view God is the Object of the Atonement (or reconciliation)—it is God who is reconciled—this is certainly not the teaching of the New Testament. Here it is men who are reconciled, not God; God alone is the Reconciler, the One who makes peace, who restores man to communion with Himself.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 290 (emphasis original)

The necessity of the cross

In their different ways they [the theories of atonement ] all want to say two things: owing to Sin, man’s situation in relation to God is dangerous, sinister, and disastrous. But man cannot alter this situation. God alone can do this; and He has done it in Jesus Christ, through His death on the Cross. There is a kind of inevitable connexion between this Event, and that dangerous, disastrous human situation, a sense that “this had to happen”. If man is to be brought back into contact with God, if he is to be able to receive the salvation which God has provided for him, then the Cross of Jesus Christ “must” happen. It is the necessary condition for God’s reconciling work. It is only because the Cross “must be”, that what seems to be an unintelligible tragedy becomes a significant saving fact. The knowledge of such a necessity, of the feeling that “it could not be otherwise”, was identical with the knowledge that the death on the Cross was no accident, no thwarting of the divine plan of salvation, no frustration of the divine government of the world, but, on the contrary, was itself an integral part of the divine saving history. “Therefore Christ had to suffer—the whole liberating truth is based upon this “must”. 286 (emphasis original)

The sacrifice

It contained the truth—still valid for us to-day—that sin is a reality, which can only be removed by a real event. The atoning sacrifice represents the truth that something must happen, if there is to be peace between God and man, if the communion which has been broken by sin is to be restored. Indeed, there is a further truth behind the shedding of blood in the atoning sacrifices: blood must actually flow, for man has forfeited his life by his rebellion against his Creator and Lord.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 284 (emphasis original)