Has the Fall completely removed all natural human knowledge of God? Flashcards
(15 cards)
Introduction
- Clarify the scope
- Define key terms
- Thesis statements
Clarify the scope: This question is not about whether we can know God exists (which belongs to philosophical arguments like cosmological/teleological arguments), but about the nature of human knowledge of God post-Fall.
Define key terms:
• Natural knowledge of God: knowledge gained through human reason or innate sense (natural theology).
• Revealed knowledge of God: knowledge gained through God’s special revelation, e.g. Jesus and the Bible.
Thesis statement (line of argument preview):
The Fall has severely impaired natural human knowledge of God but has not completely removed it; reason and natural theology have limited but real value, though revealed theology remains essential for full knowledge.
Paragraph 1: The Argument That the Fall Has Not Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Defence of Natural Theology)
A01: Aquinas Natural theology
Aquinas’ Natural Theology:
• Reason cannot fully know God’s infinite nature but can know God’s existence (via teleological and cosmological arguments).
• Natural law theory shows God’s moral law inscribed in human nature.
• Reason leads to awe, love, and reverence for God by reflecting on creation’s goodness.
• Natural theology supports faith but does not replace it.
• Catholic view: faith and reason complement each other (Pope John Paul II: “Faith and reason are like two wings”).
Paragraph 1: The Argument That the Fall Has Not Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Defence of Natural Theology)
A01: On original sin
Aquinas on Original Sin:
• Original justice destroyed, but reason and inclination toward good (synderesis) remain.
• Rationality remains sufficient to sin, implying reason survives the Fall partially.
• Concupiscence sometimes natural, but reason can still govern passions.
• Therefore, natural theology is valid but imperfect and requires God’s grace.
Paragraph 1: The Argument That the Fall Has Not Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Defence of Natural Theology)
A01: Emil Brunner
Emil Brunner:
• The Fall destroyed material imago Dei but not the formal imago Dei (reason, language, moral responsibility remain).
• Natural knowledge (e.g., preserving grace) is accessible through reason, evidenced by order in creation.
• However, full knowledge requires revealed theology due to distortion by sin.
Paragraph 1: The Argument That the Fall Has Not Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Defence of Natural Theology)
A01: John Calvin’s senses divintatis
John Calvin’s sensus divinitatis:
• All humans possess an innate sense of God’s existence.
• This sense is universal and explains widespread belief in God historically.
• Although the Fall distorted this knowledge, it still exists.
Paragraph 1: The Argument That the Fall Has Not Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Defence of Natural Theology)
A01: Romans 1:20
• God’s invisible qualities clearly seen in creation, so people are “without excuse.”
• This supports natural theology – knowledge of God through the natural world.
Paragraph 1: The Argument That the Fall Has Not Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Defence of Natural Theology)
Evaluation
• Aquinas offers a balanced, nuanced view acknowledging the effects of the Fall but preserving human reason’s capacity to know God.
• Calvin’s sensus divinitatis is an intuitive natural theology but faces difficulties:
• Modern atheism’s prevalence challenges the universality of this sense.
• Plantinga’s “noetic effects” of sin defend its absence in some but this is questionable due to good atheists and moral societies without belief.
• Brunner’s partial imago Dei defense is a middle ground but Barth critiques it as contradictory.
• Romans 1:20 is debated: Calvin stresses “understanding” as sensing rather than reasoning; Barth insists “understanding” implies reason which is corrupted.
• Overall, natural theology offers a limited but real capacity to know God, supporting faith but unable to replace revelation.
Paragraph 2: The Argument That the Fall Has Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Critique of Natural Theology)
A01: Augustine and Karl Barthes
• Original sin corrupts human nature including reason.
• “The finite has no capacity for the infinite” — humans cannot grasp God’s infinite nature.
• Reliance on reason leads to idolatry (Romans 1:25) – worship of created things instead of Creator.
• Natural theology makes revelation unnecessary, which contradicts God sending Jesus.
• Barth: Natural theology subverts true faith and leads to anthropocentric theology.
Paragraph 2: The Argument That the Fall Has Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Critique of Natural Theology)
A01: Calvin’s revealed theology
• The Fall disfigures creation so natural theology can only reveal existence, not God’s full nature.
• True knowledge of God requires faith in Jesus and Scripture.
• The mind is passive; only revelation grants true knowledge.
Paragraph 2: The Argument That the Fall Has Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Critique of Natural Theology)
A01: Barth’s interpretation of Romans 1:20
• Creation shows God’s power but humans are too sinful to perceive it rightly.
• Natural theology results in false beliefs and idolatry.
Paragraph 2: The Argument That the Fall Has Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Critique of Natural Theology)
Criticism of Aquinas’ approach
Aquinas’ natural theology risks undermining faith by suggesting reason alone can find God.
His arguments only support belief’s reasonableness but do not prove God.
Aquinas admits faith is still essential.
Paragraph 2: The Argument That the Fall Has Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Critique of Natural Theology)
AO1: Pelagius and liberal Christian rejection of original sin:
• Some reject original sin and thus preserve human reason intact.
• However, mainstream theology and observation still support some concept of fallen nature.
Paragraph 2: The Argument That the Fall Has Completely Removed Natural Knowledge of God (Critique of Natural Theology)
Evaluation
• Barth’s critique is powerful and coherent in highlighting the danger of relying on fallen reason.
• The idolatry argument explains historical dangers (e.g., Nazi ideology), emphasizing the Fall’s corruption.
• Calvin’s view aligns with Protestant emphasis on revelation, faith, and Scripture’s authority.
• Aquinas carefully limits natural theology, preserving faith’s primacy; Barth possibly overstates reason’s corruption to zero.
• Pelagius and liberal critiques are minority and face strong theological and empirical objections (e.g., universal sinfulness).
• Barth’s argument that natural theology renders revelation pointless is philosophically persuasive but arguably overlooks that Aquinas’ arguments only support faith.
• The existence of atheism and false religions complicates Calvin and Barth’s optimism about natural knowledge.
Conclusion
• The Fall has clearly impaired natural human knowledge of God but has not completely eradicated it.
• Aquinas and Brunner present a compelling case that reason and natural law still function post-Fall, though imperfectly and requiring divine grace.
• Calvin and Barth emphasize that fallen human nature distorts reason to the point where natural theology is unreliable without revelation.
• The reality of atheism and idolatry supports Barth’s warnings, but widespread religious belief and moral awareness suggest some natural sense remains.
Line of argument
• Therefore, the Fall limits and complicates natural human knowledge of God, but does not completely remove it.
• Revealed theology through faith remains essential for full knowledge.
• The best position acknowledges the partial survival of natural knowledge with its limits, requiring faith and grace for true understanding of God.
