knowledge of god

Question 1

Augustine & Karl Barth on Original Sin vs Aquinas’ Natural Theology

Answer 1

Aquinas accepted that human reason could never know or understand God’s infinite divine nature
However, he argued that human reason can gain lesser knowledge of god

Karl Barth was influenced by Augustine, who claimed that after the Fall our ability to reason become corrupted by original sin
“the finite has no capacity for the infinite”
reason is not divine, so to think it is divine is idolatry – putting earthly things on the level of God

Aquinas argues that our rationality and its accompanying inclination towards the good was not destroyed by original sin.
Our reason therefore still inclines us, through synderesis, towards goodness

Barth still seems correct that being corrupted by original sin makes our reasoning about God’s existence and morality also corrupted. Even if there is a natural law, we are unable to discover it reliably.

Question 2

Karl Barth: Aquinas’ natural theology undermines faith by making revelation pointless

Answer 2

If natural theology was valid then humans would be able to know God’s existence or God’s morality through their own efforts.

Barth argues that would make revelation unnecessary. Yet, God clearly thought revelation was necessary as he sent Jesus. It follows that natural theology cannot be valid.

natural theology does not undermine faith but instead supports it. Aquinas’ arguments for God’s existence are only intended to show the reasonableness of belief in God. They at most show that there is evidence for some kind of God

If reason only has this goal of supporting faith, then it cannot make revealed theology unnecessary.

Question 3

St Paul: Romans 1:20

Answer 3

“Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his external power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse”.

barth - accepts that the passage shows that creation does indeed allow knowledge of God, but argues humans are too sinful to manage that

Who is capable of knowing God through his creation, if not us? The bible claims that knowledge is possible, so presumably there must be some being who can manage it

Question 4

Calvin’s Sensus Divinitatis

Answer 4

all humans have an innate sense of the divine
Paul Act 17 - unknown god

Calvin thought there was no rational way to be an atheist because of this sense

Anthropological study of the religion of tribal people remote from civilisation actually shows that they believe in magical spirits of animals and ancestors

The extent of the spread of atheism in the 21st century suggests that this sense of God doesn’t exist

Plantinga defends the sensus divinitatis from the argument that not everyone has such a sense. He argues that sin has a noetic quality, meaning it changes someone’s ability to have knowledge and insight, which could block the sense of God.

Question 5

Emil Brunner

Answer 5

Brunner claimed the fall destroyed the material imago dei (Adam and Eve’s relationship with God) but not the formal imago dei, which is what separates us from animals and gives us language, reason and moral responsibility

Psalm 8 which states humans are lower than the angels but higher than the animals

preserving grace – that God continues to be active in maintaining creation, shielding it from the effects of sin

Brunner still thinks however that natural theology alone will always, due to our sinful state, result in a distorted knowledge of God. We need the special revelation of Christ to achieve full knowledge.