Abstract
After Aquinas, with regard to analogy, Catholic theologians are generally more concerned with the correct interpretation and systematization of his teaching than with a new study of the problem. Consequently a history of analogy in Catholic theology can be easily traced through the study of Aquinas’ commentators. Something of this kind has been done in the previous chapters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
M. Luther, Commentary on Galatians, transl. by E. Middleton (London: 1839), pp. 318 & ff. Cfr. Epistle Sermon, Trinity Sunday in The J. N. Lenker Edition of Luther’s Works, vol. IX, § 2 & ff.
M. Luther, Table-Talk, transl. by W. Hazlitt (Philadelphia: 1915), § XLVIII.
M. Luther, “The Magnificat” in Works of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: The United Lutheran Publication House, 1915–1932), vol. III, p. 167.
M. Luther, “Epistle Sermon, Trinity Sunday” in The J. N. Lenker Edition of Luther’s Works, vol. IX, § 6 & ff.
M. Luther, Commentary on Genesis, transl. by H. Cole (Edinburgh: 1958), p. 90.
M. Luther, “The Magnificat” in Works of Martin Luther, vol. III, p. 127.
Quotation in R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy (New York 1958), p. 101.
M. Luther, “Epistle Sermon, Trinity Sunday” in The J. N. Lenker Edition of Luther’s Works, vol. IX, § 6.
M. Luther, “Gospel Sermon, First Sunday in Advent” in Lenker Edition, vol. X, § 37.
M. Luther, Bondage of the Will, Transl. by H. Cole (London 1823), p. 158.
Quotation in R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy, p. 101.
Quotation in P. Tillich, History of Christian Thought, p. 203.
Martin Luther, Table-Talk, § CXVIII.
Luther, Preface to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. In the Commentary to the Galatians we read: “Omnis qui credit in Christum iustus est, nondum plene in re, sed in spe. Coeptus est enim iustificari et sanari sicut homo ille semivivus. Interim dum iustificatur et sanatur, non imputatur ei, quod reliquum est in carne peccatum, propter Christum qui, cum sine omni peccato sit, iam unum cum christiano suo factus, interpellat pro eo ad patrem... Perniciose errant et fallunt qui baptisatis et poenitentibus nullum peccatum tribuunt, sed tantum infirmitatem et fomitem et morbum naturae, praesertim dum in seipso non esse peccatum garriunt, quod in Deo reputante et ignoscente tantummodo non esse peccatum debuerant dicere” (p. 495). Luther goes on to affirm that the faithful who believes in Jesus Christ is “simul iustus et peccator” (Luther, Comm. in Gal.; Weimar edit., II, q. 497).
Ockham, the founder of the nominalistic school, taught that God’s existence cannot be philosophically demonstrated and that His essence is unknowable. In his Correspondence and in the Table-talks Luther declares to be a member of Ockham’s school (factions occamicae). The same is attested by Melanchton: “Gabrielem et Cameracensem pene ad verbum me-moriter recitare poterat. Diu multumque legit scripta Occam. Huius acumen anteferebat Thomae et Scoto” (Preface to the second vol. of Luther’s Works in Corpus Reformatorum, VI, 159). At the University of Erfurt where Luther studied for his M.A. the Via Moderna (that of the nominalistic school) prevailed. When Luther, newly ordained priest, was sent for a year and a half to study theology, his text-books were Gabriel Biel’s commentaries on the Sentences and other Nominalist writers,
Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, I, 2, 1.
Ibid.
Calvin, Argument to Commentary on Genesis, in Corpus Reformatorum XXIII, p. 7.
Calvin, Instit. I, 5, 1.
Calvin, In Ps 19, 1, C.R. XXXI, p. 194.
Ibid. p. 195.
Calvin, Instit. I, 15, 3; cfr. I, 5, 6.
Calvin, In Act 17, 22. C. R. XLVIII, p. 408.
Calvin, Instit. II, 12, 1.
Calvin, In Ps. 86, 8. C. R. XXXI, p. 794.
Calvin, Instit. I, 10, 2.
Calvin, Instit. I, 6, 2; I, 11, 1; I, 15, 4.
Calvin, Instil. I, 4, 1; cfr. I, 5, 12.
Calvin, Instil. I, 5, 14. Students of Calvin’s thought are generally inclined to interpret it as excluding the possibility of a natural theology after the Fall. Cfr. for instance, T. H. L. Parker, The doctrine of the Knowledge of God (London 1952), p. 27 ff.; W. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin (Philadelphia 1956), p. 40 ff.
Calvin, Instit. I, 6, 2; cfr. I, 11, 1.
Calvin, Instit. I, 13, 21.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Calvin, In Act. C.R. XLVIII, p. 209.
Calvin, Instit. I, 13, 21.
Calvin, Instit. III, 2, 6. 10 Calvin, Instit. I, 13, 17.
Calvin, Instit. I, 13, 4.
Calvin, Instit. I, 13, 17
Cfr. Calvin, Instit. I, 13, 2.
See T. H. L. Parker, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (London 1952), pp. 11–12, 109 ff.
Such it is considered by K. Barth. See Kirchliche Dogmatik 2/1, p. 269.
A. Quenstedt, Theologia didactico-polemica (Wittenberg 1685), I, ch. viii, sect. 2, q. 1.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik 2/1, pp. 269–271.
For Kierkegaard’s repeated criticisms of Hegel’s and Schleiermacher’s views on religion see the Index of Names in the Italian edition of the Journals (Kierkegaard, Diario, transl. by Fabro; Brescia: Morcelliana, 1951, vol. III, pp. 472–476). In the other works we generally find direct attacks only on Hegel, but indirect attacks on Schleiermacher are also frequent, e.g. when Kierkegaard condemns the static view of religion, or the immediate relationship to God.
Kierkegaard, On Authority and Revelation, transl. by Lowrie (Princeton 1955), p. 112. Similar statements in Concluding Unscientific Postscript 195 & 369; Attack upon Christendom 255. In the Journals (Italian transl. by Fabro I, p. 381) Kierkegaard declares that the confusion of idealism consists in only positing a quantitative difference between the finite and the Infinite and, consequently in having done away with the immense abyss of the qualitative difference between God and man. Some students of Kierkegaard (e.g. Melchiorre, “Il principio di analogia come categoria metafisica nella filosofia di Kierkegaard,” in Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 1955, p. 57; Collins, The Mind of Kierkegaard, p. 150) have maintained that the infinite qualitative difference is due to the original sin, and, therefore, it did not exist before sin: before the Fall there was an analogia entis between God and man. But we are unable to see how this interpretation can be harmonized with the clear and categorial statement of On Authority and Revelation just quoted.
Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, 233 note, Cfr. Edifying Discourses I, 100–103.
Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 369.
O.c. pp. 218–219.
O.c. p. 197.
O.c. p. 219 and 369.
Quoted by H. R. Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology, p. 237.
Ibid.
Sometimes Kierkegaard goes so far as to identify existence with sin: “We may finally reach the stage of identifying existence with evil” (Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 295; see p. 470, 517).
Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 296; cfr. 293.
O.c. p. 240.
Journals IV, A, 157; Italian Transl. by Fabro I, p. 184.
The Concept of Dread, p. 141. Similar statements may be found in the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 412: „The individual can do absolutely nothingof himself, but is as nothing before God; for here again the negtaive is the mark by which the God-relationship is recognized, and self-annihilation is the essential form for the God-relationship.“ In Crucial Situations (0. 24) it is said that all the eloquence in the world cannot convict man of sin. God alone can do that.
Philosophical Fragments, p. 19.
Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 122.
Philosophical Fragments, p. 19. Melchiorre sums up Kierkegaard’s teaching on this point as follows: “La dialettica della salvezza è quella che muove da una singolarità equivoca, base d’ogni egoismo, ad una singolarità analogica, fondata sull’amore. Per questo appunto venne Cristo: “per abolire l’egoismo e mettere l’amore: amiamoci Tun l’altro” (Melchiorre, “Il principio di analogia come categoria metafisica nella filosofia di Kierkegaard,” in Giornale critico delta filosofia italiana 1955, p. 65.
For his attacks upon Catholicism, always inspired to a Protestant conception o Christianity, see “Cattolicesimo” in the Terminological Index of the Italian edition of the Journals.
On this point see the section of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript entitled “The essential expression” (pp. 386–468).
Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology, p. 239.
In our opinion that which is new in Kierkegaard is not so much a theological speculation imbued with Catholicism (as it is sometimes affirmed, e.g. by Fabro, in Dall’essere all’esistente, Ch. VI, “L’ambiguità del cristianesimo kierkegaardiano”), since his speculation is essentially Protestant, as the earnestness with which he asserts that speculation does not suffice to make a good Christian. “The inquiring, speculating and knowing subject raises a question of truth. But he does not raise the question of subjective truth, the truth of appropriation and assimilation. The inquiring subject is indeed interested, but he is not infinitely and personally and passionately interested.” (Concluding Unschientific Postscript, p. 23).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1963 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mondin, B. (1963). Analogy in Protestant Theology from Luther to Kierkegaard. In: The Principle of Analogy in Protestant and Catholic Theology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6574-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6574-9_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-6448-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6574-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive