EZE, in my original post on Catholic and Protestant differences raises a couple issues that I want to deal with. You can read his response here.
The first point he raised was about revelation and natural theology. Most Protestants deny that human reason alone can attain to knowledge of God. The most vigorous defender of this position is Karl Barth. Now, I know little of KB, so I will rely on EZE (who is studying him with John Webster) to correct me in a spirit of generosity when need arises. Karl Barth said he could never become Catholic because of the "analogy of being". The analogy of being is another way of saying that there is something of God, a glimmer, in all of creation. This glimmer can be seen and recognized through human reason. Barth detests this idea because he believes it places theology under human perception, which would turn theology into the ultimate sin of idolatry. I'm on shaky ground with this next statement but I think Barth would say for us to say anything of God, it has to come to us from him first, in his address which breaks into the world. There can be no "natural" human reason that attains any knowledge of God.
In summary, knowledge of God must come from special revelation and not be based on any type of analogy with creation. This will only result in idolatry destroying the very witness of theology itself.
Now, for the Catholic side. The Catholic side must address this grave charge of allowing idolatry into theology. I believe a Catholic could easily point to passages such as Romans 1, Paul's speech at the Areopagus, the idea of the image of God within humanity, etc. These passages all point to some slight and prior knowledge of God that is universally present in humanity. AND it's important to note, these arguments are based in special revelation, not just an abstract rationality. This is a point that I think is crucial. Catholics only do natural theology within the context of prior faith. Atheist's don't' do natural theology because they do not have the presupposition of faith. Really, I see natural theology as based in special revelation.
There is a great humility in the analogy of being that I think protects at least to some degree to the constant temptation to idolize. The Catechism has this to say: "Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creature as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking (21). Catholics admit this knowledge is incomplete. They admit that language is both sufficient and insufficient to speak of God: "God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect." (Catechism, 22).
I think the analogy of being functions in a way to make language meaningful and keep a connection between God and world without equating the two. The Analogy of being admittedly functions in a tension. How can something be similar yet more dissimilar? But, I think that language works by analogy and to discard it actually ends up being more idolatrous. I don't actually understand any other way of preserving language about God. Maybe someone can help me out with that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Before I attempt to respond to the analogy of faith vs. being (perhaps in a diff. post or not at all) I was wondering why you think you are protestant and not catholic. You've read why I am and seem not to mind the distinctions I've drawn. Perhaps what this blog is all about is you attempting to rationalize why it's ok for you to announce to the world that you Timothy Yodmeister are now catholic. And if this is so it's ok T--we all love you and KT for that matter not because you are cath. or protestant, but because you are our friends. Hope the cheese factor wasn't too high here.
As KT says, "Tim, you are searching for the truth, you just haven't realized that means Catholic." :)
Who knows Worthington? Maybe I am a closet RC. I highly doubt it though. I have some issues with sacraments, Papal authority, and how tradition functions. But hey, the whole point of these blogs for me is to figure out more clearly why I am not or why I should become RC.
peace.
Eze, where does your name come from? The city in the South of France?
Ah Blorge, if only my name were derived from something as lovely as a town in the south of France. But alas it is a throw back from high school when I used to bust out silly free-style raps, since i'm still prone to a busta-bust from time to time it's still gloriously fitting.
Balthacalvin is making his presence felt this time around--I can tell we have some passion stirred in this conversation--or else he's really bored in seminary! I love to see you guys laying down the theological flow. I already wrote one response to the barth and analogy of being but scrapped it because it could go on forever. The long and short of it is that Barth does not deny man made in the image of God and therefore reflecting a glimmer of God to some degree. He also thinks that natural theology has its place--but its all wrapped up within God's self giving presence. His big thing is that man can't reason his way to God because knowledge of God is not just simply a deposit of information about himself--knowledge of "this One" is known only in dynamic relationship. Ultimately it seems like a fallacy to me to say that natural theology is based within the context of special revelation and faith because within this context one is no longer dealing with what is "natural" or "rational" on its own i.e. universally present and accessible to all humans--you are dealing with what is understood through the Holy Spirit-and then we're kind of back at an analogy of faith.
(I must add that for the past 5 minutes Eliot has been clamoring to go outside and chop wood--this may explain any of my inconsistencies :) instead of stupidity)
I think Balthac. is right though--a discussion of natural theo. is not really what I was getting at before. Maybe his discussion of authority is a way of getting at this--for me it's about how God gives himself. How do your contrasting Piperinian and Mennonite roots affect this discussion overall? For Piper--sadly for me to say--the issue would probably also be about God's authority in giving himself. For the Arminian in you the details would probably be more about ecclesiastical authority since RC and us quasi-arminians are all semi-pelagians anyway. I gotta stop now this all sounds like pure crap to me. sorry guys.
The "Evangelical" impulse is to say that the Bible is the sole source of revelation, but when the rubber hits the road, there is also the idea that God reveals certain things to is in prayer, for example or through reading a book or a conversation over a pint (er, cup of coffee- decaf).
To say that the Bible is the sole authority of faith is different from saying that the Bible is the final authority. I'd argue that the real position of Evangelicals is the latter, even if they say the former.
In terms of natural theology, how would you relate it to the pietist way of viewing things in terms of having feelings or intuitions play a role? They are, after all, part of creation.
Ok, it looks like the nature of authority is the next post for sure. I have to go write about anabaptism and trent right now, so, hopefully by Wed I can have some thoughts for you guys.
Post a Comment