Analogia Fidei in Contrast to Analogia Entis; Barth More Committed to a Theology of the Word than the Classically Reformed

Clearly the question of analogical knowledge of God (contrary to something like univocal) is a reality that the mainstream of Christian orthodox theology has appropriated in its quest to engage with God (think about the relationship between archetypal/ectypal knowledges). But as we can see analogia represents a continuum when it comes to nuancing exactly what one means when they appeal to analogical knowledge of God. In the last post we responded, a bit, to Richard Muller and the Post Reformed orthodox’s defense of the Thomist analogia entis (analogy of being), and contrasted that with Karl Barth’s alternative, analogia fidei (analogy of faith). In this post I thought I would elaborate further what in fact Barth means when he refers to an analogia fidei. There is an obvious point of convergence between Thomas and Barth on analogical knowledge of God, but that is where the commonality also becomes a point of departure; and that all has to do with the way that Barth develops his theological anthropology from the Logos of God. For Barth what it means to be human, the reality of humanity’s esse or ‘being’ is always extra nos (outside of us)—as Arthur McGill would say it: humans have an ecstatic existence. As such it follows that there is nothing inherently present within humanity, whether that be in the original creation or the new creation, that allows it to ever have a genuine knowledge of God. The moment that thought is entertained, I surmise for Barth, we collapse into some form of naturum purum (pure nature), or into an abstract ontology for what it means to be human; i.e. a humanity that can be conceived of in abstraction from the humanity of Jesus Christ pro nobis (for us). This is why analogical knowledge, for Barth, cannot start in a conception of humanity that is isolated from God, but we must start, according to Barth, from a concrete ground in Godself if we ever hope to have a genuine knowledge of God; which is why the Logos of God, Jesus Christ, is so central to this effort for Barth.

I mean if I were a Roman Catholic I suppose I could see why being a Thomist, neo-Thomist, or scholastic Reformed is so important, but as a Protestant that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If one of the primary principia for the Protestant movement is a commitment to a thick theology of the Word then the semper reformanda (always reforming) move means to me that I want to always be reforming my knowledge of God according to the depth dimension and res (reality) of Holy Scripture; viz. according to Jesus Christ. In light of this Barth gives us further elucidation for understanding what he thinks analogia fidei is, and why it is so important to him vis-à-vis the Roman Catholic (and the scholastic Reformed) analogia entis. Here are some of Barth’s rationales:

Our reply to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the analogia entis is not, then, a denial of the concept of analogy. We say rather that the analogy in question is not an analogia entis but according to Rom. 12.6 the ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως , the likeness of the known in the knowing, of the object in thought, of the Word of God in the word that is thought and spoken by man, as this differentiates true Christian prophecy in faith from all false prophecy. This analogia fidei is also the point of the remarkable passages in Paul in which man’s knowledge of God is inverted into man’s being known by God. Paul calls Christians γνόντες θεόν only to amend it once at: μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ. It is obviously this γνωσθhnai that distinguishes their gignwvskein as Christians from their previous non-knowing of God as pagans (Gal. 4.8f). If here in the Christian community a man thinks he has known something, he has not known what must be known. One can never look back on the human, even the Christian act of knowledge as such as on a successful work corresponding to its object. The man who loves God οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ αὐτοῦ. Again it is the divine act of knowledge which takes place on man rather than through man that distinguishes those whose knowledge is grounded in love of God and therefore in true fellowship with Him, in the presence of God (1 Cor. 8.2f). But even in the Christian this being known, the divine possibility, remains distinct from the human possibility of knowing; this cannot exhaust it; there is only similarity, analogy. To see God “face to face” without dissimilarity must await the eternal consummation even in the case of Christians τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ  (i.e., not just corresponding, similarly, analogously, but exactly as) ἐπεγνώσθην (1 Cor. 13.12). We find the same reversal in the words of Augustine And those who see them (namely, the works of God) through Your Spirit, You see in them. And when they see that they are good, you see that they are good: and whatever is pleasing because of You, You are pleased in them; and whatever pleases us through Your Spirit is pleasing to You in us (Conf. XIII, 31, 46)…. Precisely when we describe both the conformity of man to God that takes place in faith and also the point of contact for the Word of God posited in this conformity, not as an inborn or acquired property of man but only as the work of the actual grace of God, our only final word at this point can be that God acts on man in His Word. Because man’s work in faith is that on which God’s work is done, man can know the Word of God. He knows as he is known by God.[1]

We can maybe appreciate better where Barth is coming from. He is simply wanting to impress the idea that only God can give genuine knowledge of God, and that he has freely chosen to do that in a particular and scandalous way through his dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

I will have to say that it is rather strange to me these days. I grew up as an evangelical Protestant being inculcated in the idea that God’s Word alone was my standard for life and godliness, for doctrine and teaching, and all else. And yet as we have entered the 21^st century what I have come to realize, at least for the new generation (and her teachers) what it means to follow sola scriptura is only in an extensive sense, and instead to privilege the tradition of the church as actually authoritative for life, practice, and most importantly: exegesis of Holy Scripture. Barth fits much better with the sensibilities I was inculcated with as a Protestant evangelical and generally Reformed Christian; with a strict emphasis upon the Word of God. And with a theology of the Word that we might think would make someone like Martin Luther very proud. In Barth we don’t have someone who is not resourcing the past, or who isn’t working through all the important voices of the history of the church; but what we do have is someone who actually elevates the Word of God as authoritative over all else—and he supplies an ontology of the Word of God in order to do that.

I mention all of this, in the context of this post, because I see people rejecting Barth’s offering almost purely upon the notion that the tradition of the church has rejected the almost novel ideation that Barth is providing the church in his modern milieu (novel according to his naysayers). But this isn’t a good enough response to me. If folks simply want to argue with Barth purely based upon the supposed tradition of the church, then I see this as evasion rather than genuine engagement. More, if people aren’t going to get down and dirty and actually attempt to take Barth’s idea on analogia fidei down by way of real material theological objections, then again, this really isn’t worth much response. And yet this seems to be the way people usually respond to Barth’s ideas. “Well the church has never entertained anything close to Barth’s theology so it is at best heterodox, and at worst heretical.” At the end of the day it clearly is a judgment call as to whether or not someone wants to accept the type of radical approach Barth is taking, but that judgment should be based upon engagement with the realities that Barth actually presents; not just based upon general evasions and put downs.

That said: I’m with Barth.

 

 

 

[1] Karl Barth, CD I/1, 240-41.