I’ve had some complaint at the heavy lifting we’ve done and some just want the nuts and bolts, the point. so here it is.
The point is that natural theology is legit when done rightly Barth was right to critique, but overstepped and Von Balthasar is right to appropriate barth and correct in a few places.
But the heart of Christian natural theology is not the world we find ourselves in according to reason because reason has now been reduced to kantian ideas for many but to begin with the primacy of aesthetic apeal, the appeal to love and how we love, but imperfectly. Yet, there is a perfect love that love is Christ. Both God’s love to us, and His love to the Father. He is the love that transcends love and thus we cal that love glory. When we begin to understand this it’s a belief that’s unexpectedly plausible, something we thought we knew before, but are surprised to find standing alien to us, yet recognizable all the same.
Von Balthasar is saying that christian apologetics should be about manifesting a subjective encounter between the non believer and christ not winning him over with logic though logic plays a part the more important appeal initially is that the non-believer see the Christ-form in the churc and her faithful that the non-believer see love and love that transcends love, in the church
it’s a really simple argument, but really deep too. So there you have it.
that’s the point. hurrah.