Every once in a while you get a craving for a certain type of food. With me it is the DQ Peanut Buster Parfait. You just gotta have it. The same thing sometimes happens to my brain. Just a craving to exercise it a little beyond its usual daily routines. So I thought we would begin with a fairly easy question: Is there any true knowledge of God (" natural theology") outside of the revelation in Christ? We'll begin with a look at the first chapter of Romans, but before that....
God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason from the works of creation. (Vatican I) [a]
...‘natural theology’ does not exist as an entity capable of becoming a separate subject within what I consider to be real theology - even for the sake of being rejected. (Barth) [b]
A common starting point to the discussion of natural theology is the dichotomy of opinion which has surrounded the question in the last hundred or so years. Vatican I is often quoted in support of, and Barth with his definitive “No!” is often quoted against, the question of natural theology. Modern commentators on Romans 1 are divided on the issue as well. Often these preferences fall along denominational lines. Some commentators are conscious of supporting the view put forth by the Councils of the Roman Catholic Church. Others are conscious of supporting Barth’s position. Still others try to plot a middle course, and seek to avoid the extremes of interpretation.
Over the next few weeks (or maybe months) I intend to occassionally examine the question “Is there a natural theology in Romans 1:18-23?” -- in dialogue with modern commentators; to address the arguments both for and against a natural theology in Romans 1:18-23, as those arguments are presented by exegetes of the passage. I shall also try to be aware of the theological implications of the question.
Although the name most associated in the 20th century with the rejection of natural theology is of course Karl Barth, I shall concentrate more closely on the comments of other biblical commentators. Barth’s thought, though, has exercised a great amount of influence over this question. His thinking on the whole question of natural theology is well known in theological circles. His answer was a definitive “No!” to the entire concept. The debate between Barth and his opponents (such as Emil Brunner) have set the background for much subsequent thinking on this whole question. What Barth has brought to the question is quite significant. Is there a natural theology at all, let alone in the Bible, and furthermore in the passage under consideration? I shall focus more directly on the question of whether or not Paul argues that there is a natural knowledge of God. That is to say, whether there is a knowledge of God which is neither attained by knowledge of Christ, nor acquired through the direct revelation of Scripture.
Barth is not without his critics. In more recent times James Barr has answered Barth’s no with a most definitive yes.[c] Is natural theology then, as Barth was convinced, truly a nonentity, something to be removed from the parlance of Christian theology? The nonentity stubbornly seems to remain, however, prompting another modern author, Paul Avis, to comment:
But perhaps natural theology is not what Barth thinks it is. Perhaps it is not a malignant tumour but a vital healthy organ. In that case, the operation was clearly not successful. Natural theology is not so easily got rid of. It tends to return under another name in the form of dialogue with the sciences, other religions, or Marxism. Barth has certainly not succeeded in abolishing natural theology - he has just given it a bad name. [d]
And a bad name it indeed has in some circles. Part of the problem is just that -- i.e., of naming the creature we are about to discuss. What exactly do we mean by the term natural theology? Do we mean the operation of pure unaided reason? Do we mean reason operating independent of God’s will? Or do we mean reason operating in conjunction with God’s guidance? Certain commentators have held the view that by natural theology we mean the capacity of the human mind to know God, independent of His willed desire to be known. [e] On a broad level, this definition would seem to be part of our inheritance from the Enlightenment, with respect to which Joseph Fitzmyer raises valid concerns. Within our own times, and within our own intellectual heritage, there are considerations to be taken into account. Fitzmyer explains :
Ever since the Enlightenment, when thinkers tried to extol human reason and to substitute for Christian revelation a natural religion or a religion of reason, some commentators have subconsciously reacted by denying the capability of the human mind to attain some knowledge of God. As a result, they have taken refuge in a form of fideism. In doing so they have been reluctant to admit what Paul himself actually says about natural theology; they deny that God makes himself known in any other manner than in Christ. [f]
a - Concilium Vaticanum I, Constitutio dogmatica “Dei Filius”, chapter 2, “De revelatione,” in Enchiridion Symbolarum, 33 ed., ed. H. Denzinger, rev. A Schönmetzer, (Frieburg: Herder, 1965), no. 3004, p. 588.
b - K. Barth, Natural Theology: Comprising ‘Nature and Grace’ by Professor Dr. Emil Brunner and the Reply ‘No!’ by Dr. Karl Barth, with an Introduction by J. Baillie, (London: Bles/Centenary, 1946), p. 75, cf. pp. 67-128.
c - James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
d - Paul Avis, “Does Natural Theology Exist?”, Theology 87 (1984): 431-437, p. 431.
e - So for example, Cranfield in his commentaries on Romans wishes to enforce this definition.
f - Fitzmyer, Romans, (Anchor Bible Series 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 274.
Recent Comments