When Aquinas said that we know God by analogy what did he mean?

Colo Millz said:

When Aquinas said that we know God by analogy what did he mean?

---

The Problem Aquinas Faced​

Aquinas knew two things had to be held together:

1. God is utterly transcendent — infinite, simple, beyond human categories.
2. We still need to speak about God — Scripture and theology use terms like “good,” “wise,” “just,” etc.

But how can finite human words describe an infinite God without either:

• Equivocity (words mean totally different things, so we know nothing at all), or
• Univocity (words mean exactly the same, so we reduce God to creaturely limits)?

---

Aquinas’ Solution: The Analogia Entis (Analogy of Being)​

Aquinas proposes that we speak of God by analogy. This means:

• Our words about God are neither identical nor completely unrelated to their human meaning.
• They are proportional: a likeness that preserves both similarity and difference.

---

Two Main Modes of Analogy in Aquinas​

1. Analogy of Attribution
   • A word primarily refers to one reality, but secondarily applies to another.
   • Example: “Healthy” — primarily said of a person, but also of food (because it causes health) or urine (because it indicates health).
   • Applied to God: When we say “God is good,” God is the source of all goodness — creatures are good by participation in Him.
2. Analogy of Proportionality
   • Terms express a proportionate relationship, though not on the same level.
   • Example: “Sight” in the eye vs. “sight” in/of the intellect. Not the same, but proportionally similar.
   • Applied to God: God’s “wisdom” is not identical to human wisdom, but both signify a proportionate perfection — ours in a limited mode, His in an infinite mode.

---

Key Formula (Summa Theologiae I, q. 13)​

Aquinas writes:

That is:

• When we say “God is good,” we don’t mean it exactly as when we say “this man is good.”
• But we also don’t mean something completely unrelated.
• We mean that the goodness found in creatures is a finite participation in God’s infinite goodness.

---

In Plain Terms​

When Aquinas says we know God by analogy, he means:

• Human words are inadequate but not meaningless.
• They point toward God truly, but always with a gap of transcendence.
• Creaturely perfections (goodness, wisdom, love) exist in God as their infinite source, and we know them in Him by proportion.

How does this connect with modern thinkers (like Karl Barth, who rejected Aquinas’ analogy)?​

​

This is one of the big theological battles of the 20th century: the “analogy of being” (analogia entis) versus Barth’s insistence on revelation alone. Let’s break it down:​

---

1. Aquinas’ Analogy Recap​

• We speak of God analogically: creaturely perfections (goodness, wisdom, being) exist in God as their infinite source.
• Analogy safeguards both:
  • Similarity (our words really refer to God).
  • Difference (they never capture Him fully).
• This allows for natural theology: knowing something of God through reason, nature, and being — not only revelation.

---

2. Karl Barth’s Rejection​

• Barth (Protestant theologian, Church Dogmatics) famously called the analogia entis “the invention of the Antichrist.”
• Why? He thought it implied that humans could climb to God by reason/nature, without grace or Christ.
• For Barth:
  • God is wholly other (ganz anders).
  • We cannot reason from creation up to God.
  • The only bridge is God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ (what he called the analogia fidei — analogy of faith).
• For him, Aquinas’ position blurred the radical dependence on grace and revelation.

---

3. Catholic Response: Przywara and Others​

• Erich Przywara (1930s) revived Aquinas’ analogy and deepened it into the “ever greater dissimilarity” formula:
• This became central at Vatican II (Dei Verbum hints at it).
• Catholic theology sees analogy as protecting transcendence and real knowledge — avoiding both rationalism and fideism.

---

4. Later Developments​

• Hans Urs von Balthasar: Tried to bridge Barth and Przywara — he was Barth’s friend, even dedicated books to him, while defending the analogy.
• Modern Protestant theology: Some have softened Barth’s stance, recognizing that creation does testify to God, but always through the lens of revelation.
• Contemporary Catholic thought: Still treats the analogia entis as fundamental for natural theology and interfaith philosophy.

---

✦ Synthesis​

• Aquinas: Analogy = creatures participate in God, so language about Him is possible.
• Barth: Analogy = prideful illusion; only Christ and revelation give access to God.
• Przywara / Balthasar: Tried to show analogy isn’t rationalism, but a tension of similarity/dissimilarity that keeps grace central.

Click to expand...

Colo Millz said:

Very well.

For a start how do you separate "human-driven" theology from "God-inspired" theology"?

Click to expand...

Colo Millz said:

If truth is indeed the truth presumably there are an infinite number of ways of expressing it?

Such as the "Ode to Joy" perhaps.

Or when Jesus ascended, was humanity's capacity to express the truth likewise replaced with only the ability to barf out turds forevermore?

(If you can forgive the vileness of that mixed metaphor).

Click to expand...

Colo Millz said:

I don't want to get into the Eucharist yet.

but in any event it sounds like you are sympathetic to Aquinas' analogia entis, that is, speaking of God by analogy to creaturely things.

So what do you think of Barth's criticism?

That the analogia entis is a human presumption — the attempt to build a “ladder” from creation to God by natural reason?

Click to expand...

Colo Millz said:

When Aquinas said that we know God by analogy what did he mean?

---

The Problem Aquinas Faced​

Aquinas knew two things had to be held together:

1. God is utterly transcendent — infinite, simple, beyond human categories.
2. We still need to speak about God — Scripture and theology use terms like “good,” “wise,” “just,” etc.

But how can finite human words describe an infinite God without either:

• Equivocity (words mean totally different things, so we know nothing at all), or
• Univocity (words mean exactly the same, so we reduce God to creaturely limits)?

---

Aquinas’ Solution: The Analogia Entis (Analogy of Being)​

Aquinas proposes that we speak of God by analogy. This means:

• Our words about God are neither identical nor completely unrelated to their human meaning.
• They are proportional: a likeness that preserves both similarity and difference.

---

Two Main Modes of Analogy in Aquinas​

1. Analogy of Attribution
   • A word primarily refers to one reality, but secondarily applies to another.
   • Example: “Healthy” — primarily said of a person, but also of food (because it causes health) or urine (because it indicates health).
   • Applied to God: When we say “God is good,” God is the source of all goodness — creatures are good by participation in Him.
2. Analogy of Proportionality
   • Terms express a proportionate relationship, though not on the same level.
   • Example: “Sight” in the eye vs. “sight” in/of the intellect. Not the same, but proportionally similar.
   • Applied to God: God’s “wisdom” is not identical to human wisdom, but both signify a proportionate perfection — ours in a limited mode, His in an infinite mode.

---

Key Formula (Summa Theologiae I, q. 13)​

Aquinas writes:

That is:

• When we say “God is good,” we don’t mean it exactly as when we say “this man is good.”
• But we also don’t mean something completely unrelated.
• We mean that the goodness found in creatures is a finite participation in God’s infinite goodness.

---

In Plain Terms​

When Aquinas says we know God by analogy, he means:

• Human words are inadequate but not meaningless.
• They point toward God truly, but always with a gap of transcendence.
• Creaturely perfections (goodness, wisdom, love) exist in God as their infinite source, and we know them in Him by proportion.

How does this connect with modern thinkers (like Karl Barth, who rejected Aquinas’ analogy)?​

​

This is one of the big theological battles of the 20th century: the “analogy of being” (analogia entis) versus Barth’s insistence on revelation alone. Let’s break it down:​

---

1. Aquinas’ Analogy Recap​

• We speak of God analogically: creaturely perfections (goodness, wisdom, being) exist in God as their infinite source.
• Analogy safeguards both:
  • Similarity (our words really refer to God).
  • Difference (they never capture Him fully).
• This allows for natural theology: knowing something of God through reason, nature, and being — not only revelation.

---

2. Karl Barth’s Rejection​

• Barth (Protestant theologian, Church Dogmatics) famously called the analogia entis “the invention of the Antichrist.”
• Why? He thought it implied that humans could climb to God by reason/nature, without grace or Christ.
• For Barth:
  • God is wholly other (ganz anders).
  • We cannot reason from creation up to God.
  • The only bridge is God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ (what he called the analogia fidei — analogy of faith).
• For him, Aquinas’ position blurred the radical dependence on grace and revelation.

---

3. Catholic Response: Przywara and Others​

• Erich Przywara (1930s) revived Aquinas’ analogy and deepened it into the “ever greater dissimilarity” formula:
• This became central at Vatican II (Dei Verbum hints at it).
• Catholic theology sees analogy as protecting transcendence and real knowledge — avoiding both rationalism and fideism.

---

4. Later Developments​

• Hans Urs von Balthasar: Tried to bridge Barth and Przywara — he was Barth’s friend, even dedicated books to him, while defending the analogy.
• Modern Protestant theology: Some have softened Barth’s stance, recognizing that creation does testify to God, but always through the lens of revelation.
• Contemporary Catholic thought: Still treats the analogia entis as fundamental for natural theology and interfaith philosophy.

---

✦ Synthesis​

• Aquinas: Analogy = creatures participate in God, so language about Him is possible.
• Barth: Analogy = prideful illusion; only Christ and revelation give access to God.
• Przywara / Balthasar: Tried to show analogy isn’t rationalism, but a tension of similarity/dissimilarity that keeps grace central.

Click to expand...

Colo Millz said:

I don't want to get into the Eucharist yet.

but in any event it sounds like you are sympathetic to Aquinas' analogia entis, that is, speaking of God by analogy to creaturely things.

So what do you think of Barth's criticism?

That the analogia entis is a human presumption — the attempt to build a “ladder” from creation to God by natural reason?

Click to expand...

Colo Millz said:

When Aquinas said that we know God by analogy what did he mean?

---

The Problem Aquinas Faced​

Aquinas knew two things had to be held together:

1. God is utterly transcendent — infinite, simple, beyond human categories.
2. We still need to speak about God — Scripture and theology use terms like “good,” “wise,” “just,” etc.

But how can finite human words describe an infinite God without either:

• Equivocity (words mean totally different things, so we know nothing at all), or
• Univocity (words mean exactly the same, so we reduce God to creaturely limits)?

---

Aquinas’ Solution: The Analogia Entis (Analogy of Being)​

Aquinas proposes that we speak of God by analogy. This means:

• Our words about God are neither identical nor completely unrelated to their human meaning.
• They are proportional: a likeness that preserves both similarity and difference.

---

Two Main Modes of Analogy in Aquinas​

1. Analogy of Attribution
   • A word primarily refers to one reality, but secondarily applies to another.
   • Example: “Healthy” — primarily said of a person, but also of food (because it causes health) or urine (because it indicates health).
   • Applied to God: When we say “God is good,” God is the source of all goodness — creatures are good by participation in Him.
2. Analogy of Proportionality
   • Terms express a proportionate relationship, though not on the same level.
   • Example: “Sight” in the eye vs. “sight” in/of the intellect. Not the same, but proportionally similar.
   • Applied to God: God’s “wisdom” is not identical to human wisdom, but both signify a proportionate perfection — ours in a limited mode, His in an infinite mode.

---

Key Formula (Summa Theologiae I, q. 13)​

Aquinas writes:

That is:

• When we say “God is good,” we don’t mean it exactly as when we say “this man is good.”
• But we also don’t mean something completely unrelated.
• We mean that the goodness found in creatures is a finite participation in God’s infinite goodness.

---

In Plain Terms​

When Aquinas says we know God by analogy, he means:

• Human words are inadequate but not meaningless.
• They point toward God truly, but always with a gap of transcendence.
• Creaturely perfections (goodness, wisdom, love) exist in God as their infinite source, and we know them in Him by proportion.

How does this connect with modern thinkers (like Karl Barth, who rejected Aquinas’ analogy)?​

​

This is one of the big theological battles of the 20th century: the “analogy of being” (analogia entis) versus Barth’s insistence on revelation alone. Let’s break it down:​

---

1. Aquinas’ Analogy Recap​

• We speak of God analogically: creaturely perfections (goodness, wisdom, being) exist in God as their infinite source.
• Analogy safeguards both:
  • Similarity (our words really refer to God).
  • Difference (they never capture Him fully).
• This allows for natural theology: knowing something of God through reason, nature, and being — not only revelation.

---

2. Karl Barth’s Rejection​

• Barth (Protestant theologian, Church Dogmatics) famously called the analogia entis “the invention of the Antichrist.”
• Why? He thought it implied that humans could climb to God by reason/nature, without grace or Christ.
• For Barth:
  • God is wholly other (ganz anders).
  • We cannot reason from creation up to God.
  • The only bridge is God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ (what he called the analogia fidei — analogy of faith).
• For him, Aquinas’ position blurred the radical dependence on grace and revelation.

---

3. Catholic Response: Przywara and Others​

• Erich Przywara (1930s) revived Aquinas’ analogy and deepened it into the “ever greater dissimilarity” formula:
• This became central at Vatican II (Dei Verbum hints at it).
• Catholic theology sees analogy as protecting transcendence and real knowledge — avoiding both rationalism and fideism.

---

4. Later Developments​

• Hans Urs von Balthasar: Tried to bridge Barth and Przywara — he was Barth’s friend, even dedicated books to him, while defending the analogy.
• Modern Protestant theology: Some have softened Barth’s stance, recognizing that creation does testify to God, but always through the lens of revelation.
• Contemporary Catholic thought: Still treats the analogia entis as fundamental for natural theology and interfaith philosophy.

---

✦ Synthesis​

• Aquinas: Analogy = creatures participate in God, so language about Him is possible.
• Barth: Analogy = prideful illusion; only Christ and revelation give access to God.
• Przywara / Balthasar: Tried to show analogy isn’t rationalism, but a tension of similarity/dissimilarity that keeps grace central.

Click to expand...

Colo Millz said:

I don't want to get into the Eucharist yet.

but in any event it sounds like you are sympathetic to Aquinas' analogia entis, that is, speaking of God by analogy to creaturely things.

So what do you think of Barth's criticism?

That the analogia entis is a human presumption — the attempt to build a “ladder” from creation to God by natural reason?

Click to expand...