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

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un