The material aspect becomes 'the life of Christ in me'. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit 'testifies with my spirit', meaning that the formal aspect continues to exist. The new Creation merely repairs the aspect, but does not recreate it. Therefore, the continuity remains continuous. Barth's (2002:92) objection to such a concept is that, in terms of such thinking, the human point of contact is seen as preceding the revelation of God. In addition to the revelation in Jesus Christ, there is also talk of another knowledge of God. Barth (2002:93) prefers to invert Brunner's thesis of 'it is not possible to repair what no longer exists' to read: 'But it is possible to repair a thing in such a way that one has to say this has become quite new.'In Brunner's (2002:3845) analysis of Calvin's natural theology, it is clear that he uses the above-mentioned six points as a matrix for reading Calvin. He regards Calvin and Luther as both being supportive of his own standpoint. Barth's accusation directed towards Brunner that he is Thomist or Neo-Protestant in his thinking applies primarily to Brunner's Calvinist leanings, rather than to Calvin's advancement of such an approach, asserts Brunner (2002:36). However, Brunner finds a substantial difference between the thinking of Calvin and that of Roman Catholicism. Although Calvin draws a clear distinction between the objective and the subjective aspect of the natura, Roman Catholicism holds that the two aspects coincide fully (Brunner 2002:4546). In terms of Roman Catholic belief, humankind did not lose its imago Dei with the Fall, but only its perfectio originalis. Therefore, a framework of independent thought in support of a natural theology could come into existence, independent of the revelation. Only supernature, meaning that which bears upon redemption, is reserved in the form of faith. In this way, dialectics came to amount to a dualism and nature became independent. In short, Brunner regards natural theology as the receptivity of humankind to God's word, because a 'remnant' of the imago Dei was preserved in human beings. Such Wortfahigkeit does not exist to prove God, but to proclaim the gospels (the 'what?' question) in love (the 'how?' question).Barth (2002:95, 103, 108) reacts sharply, accusing Brunner of a warped interpretation of Calvin and Roman Catholicism. He deems Brunner to have missed the sovereignty and the election of God in Christ, which is the point of departure in Calvin's work. Justification and sanctification, as Divine actions, account for the reasoning capacity of human beings. Theology has no 'other' task than to witness Christ. Barth (2002:109) reproaches Brunner for cold malice in presenting as reality and fact the hesitation and conditionality present in the writings of Calvin. According to Barth (2002:117, 121), Brunner has established a Weltanschauung. Natural theology is an answer to the false question of 'how?', which is not the task of theology (Barth 2002:123).In summary, Brunner and Barth both can be seen to have approached the issue one-sidedly, though they are two birds of the same feather. Barth opined that a natural theology could not be rehabilitated, whereas Brunner believed that such a