<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Qom</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Journal of Philosophical Theological Research</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>1735-9791</Issn>
				<Volume>21</Volume>
				<Issue>4</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2019</Year>
					<Month>12</Month>
					<Day>22</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>A Critical Study of  Karl Barth's Opposition to Natural Theology</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>A Critical Study of  Karl Barth&#039;s Opposition to Natural Theology</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>5</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>27</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">1411</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22091/pfk.2017.2309.1702</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Michel</FirstName>
					<LastName>Aghamalian</LastName>
<Affiliation>PhD candidate, Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0003-2119-285X</Identifier>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Amir Abbas</FirstName>
					<LastName>Alizamani</LastName>
<Affiliation>Associate professor, Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran. Tehran. Iran</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0001-6752-6718</Identifier>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Abbas</FirstName>
					<LastName>Yazdani</LastName>
<Affiliation>Associate professor, Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran. Tehran .Iran</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0001-9499-7259</Identifier>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2017</Year>
					<Month>07</Month>
					<Day>22</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>Critical analysis of Karl Barth&#039;s opposition to natural theology shows that it is demonstrably based on a narrow understanding of natural theology and is mostly shaped through his reaction to the misuse of theological concepts during the heydays of Hitler&#039;s rule over Germany. In his increasing opposition to natural theology in its various implications and forms, Barth seems to have been basing his arguments on ontological, epistemological, biblical and practical grounds as he leaned heavily on revelation as the sole basis of all that pertains to the formation of faith and dogma. By engaging Barth in the aforementioned areas, it will be shown that Barth&#039;s arguments fall short of consistency in that they contain false designations of natural theology by focusing on a limited and out-dated version of it, an inherent vicious circularity, a highly selective interpretation of respective biblical texts as well as a fallacy of relevance. It will be argued that the concept of revealed theology is not necessarily opposed to a constructive approach to natural theology, which seeks to appreciate the manifest glory of God in creation as an unfolding secret observed and understood through the rational faculties within the human mind. &lt;br /&gt;  &lt;br /&gt; </Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">Critical analysis of Karl Barth&#039;s opposition to natural theology shows that it is demonstrably based on a narrow understanding of natural theology and is mostly shaped through his reaction to the misuse of theological concepts during the heydays of Hitler&#039;s rule over Germany. In his increasing opposition to natural theology in its various implications and forms, Barth seems to have been basing his arguments on ontological, epistemological, biblical and practical grounds as he leaned heavily on revelation as the sole basis of all that pertains to the formation of faith and dogma. By engaging Barth in the aforementioned areas, it will be shown that Barth&#039;s arguments fall short of consistency in that they contain false designations of natural theology by focusing on a limited and out-dated version of it, an inherent vicious circularity, a highly selective interpretation of respective biblical texts as well as a fallacy of relevance. It will be argued that the concept of revealed theology is not necessarily opposed to a constructive approach to natural theology, which seeks to appreciate the manifest glory of God in creation as an unfolding secret observed and understood through the rational faculties within the human mind. &lt;br /&gt;  &lt;br /&gt; </OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Natural Theology</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">revelation</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">John Calvin</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">otherness</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_1411_629f72618277701d75616f447d543936.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
