CCC Discussion: Ways of Coming to Know God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stylteralmaldo

Guest
To continue our catechism discussions, I’ll proceed to the next topic which like the first, is in reference to chapter one of the Catechism which is titled “Man’s Capacity for God”. If I post a new topic once every three days, we’ll get through Part one of the catechism in about 10 to 11 months.

If anyone is interested in contributing to the previous topic, it can be found at the following link:

CCC Discussion: The Desire For God

The format for these discussions will be as follows:

(1) Indicate in the poll if you agree with the various paragraphs indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note that your answers will be known to others in the forum.
(2) If you wish, express the reasons for your selection(s) (or lack thereof) in the thread.
(3) Discuss the issues in the thread with each other as desired (in a respectful manner :)).

The purpose of this thread, and the others to come related to it is to dialogue with others to see if we can at the very least understand each others points of view more clearly, or perhaps come closer together as people learning to seek the truth about ourselves and/or God.​

**II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD **
31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?


33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”, can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
 
To continue our catechism discussions, I’ll proceed to the next topic which like the first, is in reference to chapter one of the Catechism which is titled “Man’s Capacity for God”. If I post a new topic once every three days, we’ll get through Part one of the catechism in about 10 to 11 months.

If anyone is interested in contributing to the previous topic, it can be found at the following link:

CCC Discussion: The Desire For God

The format for these discussions will be as follows:

(1) Indicate in the poll if you agree with the various paragraphs indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note that your answers will be known to others in the forum.
(2) If you wish, express the reasons for your selection(s) (or lack thereof) in the thread.
(3) Discuss the issues in the thread with each other as desired (in a respectful manner :)).

The purpose of this thread, and the others to come related to it is to dialogue with others to see if we can at the very least understand each others points of view more clearly, or perhaps come closer together as people learning to seek the truth about ourselves and/or God.​

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD
31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?


33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”, can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
Not too much to disagree with here, Styl. I did not vote for number one, because, despite the risk of looking too picky, no one seeks for God. All of the other points raised in the following paragraphs are true. However, while all of man kind knows that there is a God, can see evidence all around him (in other words, there really is no such thing as an atheist), he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness or, worse, twists the general revelation of nature (Rom. 1:18ff).
 
Not too much to disagree with here, Styl. I did not vote for number one, because, despite the risk of looking too picky, no one seeks for God. All of the other points raised in the following paragraphs are true. However, while all of man kind knows that there is a God, can see evidence all around him (in other words, there really is no such thing as an atheist), he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness or, worse, twists the general revelation of nature (Rom. 1:18ff).
31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.
TU,
If by “called to know and love him”, it is meant that we cannot seek Him on our own and must first be called by Him, then I think I can agree with #31. If not, then you may not be being so picky.

Jon
 
If by “called to know and love him”, it is meant that we cannot seek Him on our own and must first be called by Him, then I think I can agree with #31.
This is how I read #31 and it would be consistent with Catholic theology. No one can seek God unless God seeks us first. If we were to seek God first, that would be Pelagian which is not the Catholic position.
 
This is how I read #31 and it would be consistent with Catholic theology. No one can seek God unless God seeks us first. If we were to seek God first, that would be Pelagian which is not the Catholic position.
I would say that it would depend on how the Catechism is saying that God calls us to know Him, or how He seeks us. If it is saying that God does this through natural revelation, I would disagree. God does not call us through the means of nature because He doesn’t have to. Every one already knows there is a God through general revelation. However, because general revelation is not possessed of the grace and mercy of God, it doesn’t do anything to change the person in rebellion to one who is a new creation. God only calls and seeks lost sinners through special revelation, which would be the word of God.

The Catechism mentions this in a later paragraph and stated it quite nicely.
 
…However, because general revelation is not possessed of the grace and mercy of God, it doesn’t do anything to change the person in rebellion to one who is a new creation. God only calls and seeks lost sinners through special revelation, which would be the word of God.

The Catechism mentions this in a later paragraph and stated it quite nicely.
Is it fair to say that you do not completely agree with paragraph #31 because it lacks the clarity you think it ought to have which is instead made more clear elsewhere in the catechism?
 
Is it fair to say that you do not completely agree with paragraph #31 because it lacks the clarity you think it ought to have which is instead made more clear elsewhere in the catechism?
I think that since it was addressing general revelation in nature, it should have addressed what is often seen as the classical Scriptural passage on natural revelation, Rom. 1:18-23: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

This clearly states that all men have a natural knowledge of God, but it goes on to describe what fallen man does with this information. Therefore, man will never seek God through natural revelation.
 
Just an encouragement to continue posting these, Styl. I’m really enjoying them. We don’t get to do this here too often. And I appreciate your willingness to discuss them in a charitable, intelligent manner, brother/sister.
 
I’m not Catholic, but I have no problem voting for #31-35. Though I know they come from the Catholic Catechism, they don’t seem distinctively Catholic to me, but merely Christian.
 
Just an encouragement to continue posting these, Styl. I’m really enjoying them. We don’t get to do this here too often. And I appreciate your willingness to discuss them in a charitable, intelligent manner, brother/sister.
Wonderful! I’m glad you have found the format to your liking. I appreciate the kind comments. BTW, I’m a brother in Christ. 🙂
 
I didn’t check #31 as I believe the last sentence is missing something:
These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world and the human person.
I see three points of departure: the two mentioned and spirituality, which seems to be addresssed in #33 and perhaps also in #34. I think that aspect is necessary to truly approach God.

And in #35, I am not sure I can totally agree with the last statement:
The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
Do the proofs “predispose one to faith” or does a predisposition to faith help you see the proofs? Which comes first? I think that it is often the latter, for there can be two people given the same “proofs”, and one of them sees the presence of God around him, while the other sees no proof of God’s existence at all. Are most people led to God from understanding rational proofs or from a seed of faith growing within them?
 
Do the proofs “predispose one to faith” or does a predisposition to faith help you see the proofs? Which comes first? I think that it is often the latter, for there can be two people given the same “proofs”, and one of them sees the presence of God around him, while the other sees no proof of God’s existence at all. Are most people led to God from understanding rational proofs or from a seed of faith growing within them?
I think within the group that understands God from rational proofs, there is a further division here. A recognition that God can be seen from rational proofs is not evidence of the seed of faith. It’s evidence of a recognition that God has already built into mankind. For example, let’s say someone is an atheist or agnostic, and they are led by a Muslim cleric to recognize, from nature, that God exists. This would not be faith. It would merely be the recognition of general revelation that God has provided to all mankind. Faith, as defined in Scripture, can only be in the God of Scripture, which is not the god that Muslims worship.

A second division would be those who do not believe, and are led by natural revelation to accept that God exists. But, the difference is, that recognition eventually leads them into faith in Jesus Christ. In that case, it is more than mere intellectual knowledge that God exists, but is evidence of regeneration, or the seed of faith, as you put it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top