What do you think?
Rate this book
Christ the Logos of Creation: An Essay in Analogical Metaphysics
The Prologue of the Gospel of John identifies Jesus Christ as the eternal Word or Logos of the Father, who became flesh for the salvation of the world. Yet the world that Christ saves is his world from the beginning, for he is also the Logos of creation, the one "through whom all things were made" (John 1:3). This divinely revealed claim has profound implications not only for theology but also for metaphysics, whose relation to Christian doctrine was undermined over the course of the twentieth century, such that the Christian faith has become an increasingly private affair rather than a credible account of reality and an invitation to participate more fully in it. With Christ, the Logos of Creation , John Betz seeks to recover a Christ-centered, analogical metaphysics and to establish the indispensability of such metaphysics for Christian theology and the Christian vision of reality. In Part I, he dispels the fog of confusion about analogical metaphysics and addresses the ecumenical issues posed by Karl Barth's famous rejection of the analogia entis . Part II demonstrates how analogical metaphysics helps to explain Christian doctrine and sheds new light on the interrelationship between individual doctrines, including Trinitarian theology, Christology and soteriology, and theological anthropology. In Part III, Betz explores how this analogical perspective can aid in resolving a number of theological disputes, including the metaphysical relationship between nature and grace and the issue of divine humility. Finally, Part IV outlines further directions toward a fully Christological metaphysics that is proportionate both to the challenges of modern theology and the reality of our life in Christ the Logos.
592 pages, Hardcover
Published September 8, 2023
6 people are currently reading
135 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 19, 2024
Easily my favorite work of philosophical theology I’ve read so far. Not because I agree with all of it (far from it), but because it is so compellingly written and vigorously argued and so wide-ranging and something else I feel like I haven’t put my finger on yet.
That said, I could have done without a lengthy conclusion that summarized at length a book that was already lengthy enough.
That said, I could have done without a lengthy conclusion that summarized at length a book that was already lengthy enough.
November 21, 2023
An excellent book. Here are a few takeaways:
First, the analogia entis really does provide a lot of resources for theological and philosophical reflection. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why any informed reader would prefer a non-participation metaphysic to a participation one.
Second, Betz is one of the best voices out there to show that a-metaphysical theology is a contradiction in terms. Metaphysics and theology go together.
Third, Betz needs more Protestant friends. Frankly, I find it so odd that he seems to think Barth is the prototypical Protestant theologian, and that Barthianism is therefore *the* status quo for Protestant theology. Meanwhile, I consider Barth an aberration, and so many of Betz’s calls for Protestant ecumenism was simply preaching to the choir.
Fourth, it’s good to be a Protestant. Because I’m a Protestant, I don’t feel the need to try to make room for bad theological ideas, like Barth’s rejection of metaphysics or—as in Betz’s case—Balthasaar’s radical kenotic theology. But Betz’s being “locked” into a recognition of all the “doctors of the church” compels him to do strange things, like mutualize the contributions Hans urs von Balthasaar and Thomas Aquinas. This is unfortunate, and this particular chapter—which is the worst one in that it is surprisingly weak—is a good object lesson, I think.
All in all, I commend this book highly.
First, the analogia entis really does provide a lot of resources for theological and philosophical reflection. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why any informed reader would prefer a non-participation metaphysic to a participation one.
Second, Betz is one of the best voices out there to show that a-metaphysical theology is a contradiction in terms. Metaphysics and theology go together.
Third, Betz needs more Protestant friends. Frankly, I find it so odd that he seems to think Barth is the prototypical Protestant theologian, and that Barthianism is therefore *the* status quo for Protestant theology. Meanwhile, I consider Barth an aberration, and so many of Betz’s calls for Protestant ecumenism was simply preaching to the choir.
Fourth, it’s good to be a Protestant. Because I’m a Protestant, I don’t feel the need to try to make room for bad theological ideas, like Barth’s rejection of metaphysics or—as in Betz’s case—Balthasaar’s radical kenotic theology. But Betz’s being “locked” into a recognition of all the “doctors of the church” compels him to do strange things, like mutualize the contributions Hans urs von Balthasaar and Thomas Aquinas. This is unfortunate, and this particular chapter—which is the worst one in that it is surprisingly weak—is a good object lesson, I think.
All in all, I commend this book highly.
February 19, 2024
The book is good, but i found the beginning and the end most helpful. The middle was interesting, but could’ve been shortened significantly.
February 29, 2024
This was a very interesting read, and overall a really good book with a number of excellent arguments. Betz is in his element demonstrating that their is no such thing as a theology wholly devoid of metaphysics, and there is not viable orthodox metaphysics that does not ultimately result in an acknowledgement of the analogy of being (a univocal relationship to being results in pantheism, an equivocal approach denies any real relation in being between Creator and creature, and destroys the intelligibility of the imago dei). Further, Betz has some beautiful reflections on the relationship of these principles to Christology, and more generally corrects the oversight of neglecting a Logos-Christocentric metaphysic. Overall, this is a very well-argued, much needed work.
A couple of more critical reflections:
1) Betz is writing from a distinctly Catholic perspective--as a Protestant reader, for all its qualities I found much that was theologically objectionable and would heartily disagree with.
2) Throughout the book, the foil for Betz is the work of Karl Barth. This is understandable, as Barth's rejection of natural theology and the analogia entis is well-known. What is curious, however, is that Betz frequently treats Barth as representative of Protestantism. In fact, Betz remarks that Barth's Dogmatics is one of the defining works of Protestantism. I'm afraid Betz needs a better sense of Protestantism (and who is representative of it historically). Indeed, I'm aware of many Protestants (myself among them) who would view some of Barth's beliefs (particularly those on Scripture) as heterodox. Betz frequently seemed to assume Protestants would object to the point that he was making, when in reality, he was confusing Barth's criticism with broader Reformed thought.
3) As a Protestant reader, I found at times there was a disturbingly imprecise treatment of the implications of the arguments concerning the Logos being made, in ways that sometimes made it hard to fully confront what Betz was trying to say. In this vein, I was reminded on multiple occasions (even directly by Betz himself) that within Catholicism there is a willingness to embrace mysticism that I do not share.
A couple of more critical reflections:
1) Betz is writing from a distinctly Catholic perspective--as a Protestant reader, for all its qualities I found much that was theologically objectionable and would heartily disagree with.
2) Throughout the book, the foil for Betz is the work of Karl Barth. This is understandable, as Barth's rejection of natural theology and the analogia entis is well-known. What is curious, however, is that Betz frequently treats Barth as representative of Protestantism. In fact, Betz remarks that Barth's Dogmatics is one of the defining works of Protestantism. I'm afraid Betz needs a better sense of Protestantism (and who is representative of it historically). Indeed, I'm aware of many Protestants (myself among them) who would view some of Barth's beliefs (particularly those on Scripture) as heterodox. Betz frequently seemed to assume Protestants would object to the point that he was making, when in reality, he was confusing Barth's criticism with broader Reformed thought.
3) As a Protestant reader, I found at times there was a disturbingly imprecise treatment of the implications of the arguments concerning the Logos being made, in ways that sometimes made it hard to fully confront what Betz was trying to say. In this vein, I was reminded on multiple occasions (even directly by Betz himself) that within Catholicism there is a willingness to embrace mysticism that I do not share.
October 24, 2024
Drawing from the wells of Przywara's work on analogical metaphysics, Betz, with a collection of essays and some new chapters, offers a thorough Christological and so anthropologically sophisticated exploration of the analogy of being. He compelling argues against Barth and Heidegger's respective dismissal of analogical metaphysics while affirming the strengths of each of their positions. This is truly philosophical theology at its best. While radical Barthian's may not be persuaded with Betz's argument, this will likely become a classic treatment of the oft-contested analogy of being.
Please consult my soon-to-be published fuller review in Calvin Theological Journal for more details.
Please consult my soon-to-be published fuller review in Calvin Theological Journal for more details.
January 9, 2025
A book I could only dream of writing: the immense weight of scholarship delivered in surprisingly accessible language is a rare gift. It grounded firmly much of my own research on the theme.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews