Abstract

This dissertation presents Helmut Thielicke's law-gospel method of theological ethics in the context of his historical situation, his response to Barth, his dependence on Luther, his preaching, and his social criticism. ;Thielicke found Barth's theology "docetic" in not considering how the Christian message relates to the situation of the hearers. To overcome this "docetism" Thielicke used Luther's law-gospel distinction to interpret the world of those hearing the word. He called this interpretation "theological ethics." Thielicke claimed modern Protestantism had privatized its message, as a result of docetic theology, so that Protestants follow Christian norms in private but autonomous norms in public. Preaching takes place against this background. ;The study examines the problems behind his ethics mentioned above , and moves through an analysis of his notion of law and gospel to study his use of law and gospel in interpreting other issues and spheres . The topics in chapter four are natural law, conscience, ethical compromise, heteronomy in Christian ethics, medical ethics, and the theology of revolution. ;A critical evaluation concludes the study. The "Internal Critique" points out the tension between Thielicke's biblical exegesis and his systematic principles and shows that Thielicke contradicts himself by claiming to follow Luther's order of law and gospel which assumes a general revelation of law, while denying general revelation. Often Thielicke seems to teach an ethics of gospel and law, following Barth, instead of Luther's ethics of law and gospel. The "External Critique" explores Protestant and Catholic responses to Thielicke, emphasizing his exegesis and the possibility of doing good in a fallen world. The author suggests Thielicke could have overcome "docetism" more effectively by greater use of the doctrine of creation. The underemphasis on creation tends to make Thielicke's own work docetic