Abstract

One might think that use of Romans 2:14--16 as the scriptural foundation upon which most Christian ethicists develop their theories on conscience would lead to a common understanding. In fact, the opposite seems true. Harmony in definition proves to be elusive. Instead, two major interpretive views tend to emerge. ;Traditionally Catholicism has emphasized the important role of conscience in determining moral behavior as an intrinsic component of the "ongoing" or "continuous" conversion experience In contrast, Protestants have traditionally looked to the conscience to provide a means of judgment or assurance regarding an individual's relational standing to God. The resulting gap between the two traditions has led to confusion in the ethical application of conscience to the point that some suggest the term, conscience, should be "done over, or done in." ;The purpose of this study is to analyze and explore to what degree Bernard Haring and Helmut Thielicke agree or disagree on the nature and function of conscience, in light of their theological conceptions of anthropology and soteriology. That is, how do they define the conscience in terms of human anthropology? How do they describe the relationship between conscience and the entire process of conversion? And to what degree do the answers to these questions offer promise of a shared understanding of the conscience? ;Although Haring and Thielicke have differing conceptions of the nature and function of conscience, there exists enough overlap to challenge convential wisdom about irreconcilable differences. When viewed side-by-side, the works of Haring and Thielicke represent a significant narrowing of the conceptual gap concerning conscience. While the Gospel - Law debate remains an important point of difference, Haring moves to a greater emphasis on the religious conscience through his discussion of the fundamental option, and Thielicke moves toward a greater emphasis on the moral aspect through his discussion of the role of Law in the moral life. When taken together, both views offer hope that an ecumenical view of conscience can be recovered