Skip to main content

It Goes Like This

1. Communion with God is the fulfillment of the human person;

2. God is offering that communion, and indeed, obligates man to seek it;

3. That communion requires of man the total submission of himself to God in a loving, filial relationship;

4. The purpose of theology is to know how to enter into that relationship; (and secondarily, to begin to understand the nature of it)

5. The basis or driving force of theology is God's self-revelation for the purpose of communion with man;

6. God cannot deceive or be deceived;

7. Therefore, God must safeguard the truths of theology and make them accessible, based upon His nature and intent.

Comments

Nathan said…
Does this mean that the necessary theology has been available to all people throughout history?
Jason said…
Yes. I meant "able to be humanly known" here with the term "accessible"; I am certain that several human failures could be pointed to, but that is not the focus of this argument.
On the contrary, the Lord says, "I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you." And again, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."

I answer that, the final proposition does not follow from God's unwillingness to deceive or be deceived. It is quite clear that at times God intentionally masks his truths, as Moses himself records. Likewise, to deceive and allow others to deceive are not analogous things. One might be perfectly clear, and yet others could be allowed to obfuscate one's clarity for evil, or, as the case may be, good. Moreover, God's self-revelation is explored by theology, but theology is not so tightly bound to God's self-revelation in Christ as to require that for God's self-revelation to be truthful, theology must have a perfect correspondence to the Divine Word. God's self-revelation should not be understood as merely God's provision of cognitive knowledge of himself, but the actual free and willful accomplishment of the Father's purposes in the world through his Son. Finally, it is clear that no human agency can fully transmit this divine self-revelation, for if it could, then it would leave no questions that could not be answered. As St. Anselm says, theology is "faith seeking understanding." If theology completely transmitted the self-revelation of God, then it would not be seeking understanding, but have achieved it. But, if it has not, then some things are obscured.

Reply to Objection 4. While it is true that theology has relation to God as a major locus, the purpose of theology is actually three fold: first, to understand God, second, to understand how to relate to God and, three, to understand God's re-creational intent for all of creation.

Reply to Objection 5. Likewise, God's self-revelation is two-fold: primarily, in the Divine Word through whom all three purposes of theology are fulfilled and, secondarily, in the Written Word, which bears witness to God's divine purposes.

Reply to Objection 7. Objection 6 assures us of the truthfulness of God's self-revelation, but as we have seen, does not assure us of proper receipt thereof.
Jason said…
The reply fails to distinguish between God's essence as He knows himself, and the truth which he has chosen to reveal. What God reveals is meant to be known by the fact that God reveals it.

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...