<\/p>
Milbank asks the intriguing question of whether de Lubac\u2019s surnaturel <\/em> thesis \u201crather deconstructs the terms of the Schleiermacher\/Barth divide.\u201d He appears to mean that the polarization of Schleiermacher\u2019s \u201cintrinicism\u201d and Barth\u2019s \u201cextrinicisim\u201d is dissolved by de Lubac\u2019s Thomist understand of nature and grace. To adopt, for the moment, an idiom I shy away from: The supernatural is there in the natural (as Schleiermacher would insist), but the natural is only what it is by extending beyond itself to the supernatural, and so we cannot simply take the natural \u201cas it is.\u201d The supernatural is sheer grace (as Barth would insist), but it fulfills rather than contradicts our humanism. <\/p>\n Again, this whole set of questions needs to be disturbed by a clear understanding of sin. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Milbank asks the intriguing question of whether de Lubac\u2019s surnaturel thesis \u201crather deconstructs the terms of the Schleiermacher\/Barth divide.\u201d He appears to mean that the polarization of Schleiermacher\u2019s \u201cintrinicism\u201d and Barth\u2019s \u201cextrinicisim\u201d is dissolved by de Lubac\u2019s Thomist understand of nature and grace. To adopt, for the moment, an idiom I shy away from: The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theology"],"yoast_head":"\n