Knowledge of God in himself

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
What do we know concerning God in himself as opposed to God as he relates to us. It seems that there are a couple answers to that question going around and each one leads to vast consequences in one's view of God.

Also any info on books or articles on the subject would be appreciated.

CT
 
What do we know concerning God in himself as opposed to God as he relates to us. It seems that there are a couple answers to that question going around and each one leads to vast consequences in one's view of God.

Also any info on books or articles on the subject would be appreciated.

CT

We cannot stray beyond Scripture - what God has not revealed man cannot know. All theology exists in mystery; notice how the apostle Paul so often bursts into doxology when he reflects on what God is towards us rather than in Himself.
Calvin (The Institutes) is superb, see http://calvinismonline.blogspot.com/ (in loc.).
 
What do we know concerning God in himself as opposed to God as he relates to us. It seems that there are a couple answers to that question going around and each one leads to vast consequences in one's view of God.

What does "in himself" and "as he relates to us" mean?
 
We cannot stray beyond Scripture - what God has not revealed man cannot know.

"or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1:6).

There are some things that men want to add that can not be deduced from Scripture - and those things we can not know.


All theology exists in mystery; notice how the apostle Paul so often bursts into doxology when he reflects on what God is towards us rather than in Himself.
Calvin (The Institutes) is superb, see http://calvinismonline.blogspot.com/ (in loc.).

This I find confusing: "All theology exists in mystery". In scripture, when it speaks of mystery, it always speaks of things that were hidden, but are now revealed in (because of or due to) Christ. Biblical mystery are those things now revealed to us because we now "have the mind of Christ".
 
Last edited:
"or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1:6).

There are some things that men want to add that can not be deduced from Scripture - and those things we can not know.




This I find confusing: "All theology exists in mystery". In scripture, when it speaks of mystery, it always speaks of things that were hidden, but are now revealed in (because of or due to) Christ. Biblical mystery are those things now revealed to us because we now "have the mind of Christ".


Our starting point surely must be the self-disclosure of God. It is not useful for us to know more – indeed, it is presumptuous to speculate. I'd be happy to use Calvin's concept of the 'incomprehensibility' of God in stead of the word 'mystery'. If your theology does not lead you to doxology then there is something tragically wrong. God is 'ever beyond'. There is, in the words of S Kierkegaard, 'an infinitive, qualitative difference' between God and His creation.
For your personal edification Id refer you to J Packer, viz. http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ple&search_kind=and&phrase=Packer+audio&B1=Go
Every blessing!
 
Our starting point surely must be the self-disclosure of God. It is not useful for us to know more – indeed, it is presumptuous to speculate. I'd be happy to use Calvin's concept of the 'incomprehensibility' of God in stead of the word 'mystery'. If your theology does not lead you to doxology then there is something tragically wrong. God is 'ever beyond'. There is, in the words of S Kierkegaard, 'an infinitive, qualitative difference' between God and His creation.
For your personal edification Id refer you to J Packer, viz. http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ple&search_kind=and&phrase=Packer+audio&B1=Go
Every blessing!

I disagree on speculation - I think it is both healthy an useful to speculate - the only requirement is that one is clear about what ideas are speculative.

But do you not agree that we must include not only revelation, but that which we can deduce from revelation?

If you mean by doxology the praise and worship of God, I agree. Is that what you mean?

"God is ever beyond" seems to imply we can not know God. And " 'an infinitive, qualitative difference' between God and His creation" does not mean anything to me unless you can tell me in what regard - in knowledge, power, mercy? If in all things, it seems there is an impassible barrier between God and man - where man can have no knowledge of God and God really can not understand man.

Wasn't Kierkegaard considered a neo-orthodox and existentialist?


And finally, back to the question - what does it means to know things concerning "God in himself".
 
God reveals truth through two books does He not, the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture?

Both books would fall into the category of knowledge of God as he relates to us. The issue is not one of truth for what God reveals to us as he relates to us is actual truth.

God in himself is kinda like knowing what God was doing before he created anything.

Unsaved man thus can know something of God from creation (Romans 1) but this can never save for God's Revelation only is sufficient.

No one is contradicting such.

CT
 
This I find confusing: "All theology exists in mystery". In scripture, when it speaks of mystery, it always speaks of things that were hidden, but are now revealed in (because of or due to) Christ. Biblical mystery are those things now revealed to us because we now "have the mind of Christ".

How do you make sense of 2 Cor. 9:15? This not directly related to the thread but it seems to wreak havoc on a Clarkian system.

CT
 
God in himself is kinda like knowing what God was doing before he created anything.
He was being. :)

I not really sure at this point if what you are asking is a meaningful question. What we know of God is what he has revealed and what we can deduce from that revelation. If by your definition, this is not knowing God in himself, then there is nothing left to know as far as I can see. But I probably still don't understand what you are asking.
 
How do you make sense of 2 Cor. 9:15? This not directly related to the thread but it seems to wreak havoc on a Clarkian system.

CT

I don't see any havoc caused by this single verse on a whole system.

2Co 9:15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

Seem to speak of the greatness of God's blessings - and that how God will multiply those blessings is something we do not know. There is clearly some irony involved since at face value to speak of the unspeakable is a contradiction. In a similar way, saying that God is ineffable is a self contradiction. Since Paul's writing are full of descriptions of God's gifts to man, then it is not reasonable he means that God's gifts are literally indescribable.

Many commentaries conclude that the "unspeakable gift" is in fact, Jesus Christ. But there, I said it! :)
 
Dieter,

You are quite right.

Our theologians affirm with one voice that we don't know God "in se" (in himself, as he knows himself, apart from his disclosure to us).

This is essentially the same theme/question under discussion in the "archetypal/ectypal" thread.

The Scottish Presbyterian theologian David Dickson (c.1583-1662), an associate of Robert Blair and Samuel Rutherford, prof. of theology at Glasgow and Edinburgh, and possibly a contributor to the Directory for Public Worship said (commenting on 1 Tim 6:16):

Whom no man hath seen] Arg. 6. Although the reasons of his commands should not be manifest to us, yet for our Obedience and Faith it is sufficient to know, that God in himself is a light which cannot be approached, and an hidden Majesty, having his peculiar and proper essence, which our understanding cannot apprehend, nor see with a beatifical vision in this mortal life: Therefore it becomes us to adore, observe, and extol the pleasure of his will, rather than curiously to search into it: To him be honour and power for ever. David Dickson, An exposition of all St. Pauls epistles, together with an explanation of those other epistles of the apostles, St. James, Peter, John & Jude (London, 1659), 170

Ursinus, writing in the 1580s in what we have as his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (ET, 123), says:

God cannot be defined, for the reason that he is immense, and because we are ignorant of his essence. We may, however, describe him to a certain extent from the revelation whcih he has been pleased to make of himself.

It is true that Wollebius says, "God is known in himself and in his works" (ET, 37) he also says, "The essence of God is incomprehensible." Evidently, by "in se," he did not mean "as he is considered apart from his self-disclosure to us." By "in se" he means, "as distinct from creation."

Van Mastricht said, "What the divine essence is in itself must be inaccessible to our intellect" (Theoretico-practica theologia, 2.3.3).

The Reformed summarized this notion with the slogan:

finitum non capax infiniti - the finite is not capable of the infinite.

We can and must know God truly, but not as he is in himself considered apart from his self-disclosure to us.

rsc

Our starting point surely must be the self-disclosure of God. It is not useful for us to know more – indeed, it is presumptuous to speculate. I'd be happy to use Calvin's concept of the 'incomprehensibility' of God in stead of the word 'mystery'. If your theology does not lead you to doxology then there is something tragically wrong. God is 'ever beyond'. There is, in the words of S Kierkegaard, 'an infinitive, qualitative difference' between God and His creation.
For your personal edification Id refer you to J Packer, viz. http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ple&search_kind=and&phrase=Packer+audio&B1=Go
Every blessing!
 
David Dickson [cut] possibly a contributor to the Directory for Public Worship.

There must be some crossed wires here. Dickson did not attend the Assembly. There was talk of a Directory in Scotland with which Dickson was associated; but the Solemn League and Covenant put an end to it.
 
Our theologians affirm with one voice that we don't know God "in se" (in himself, as he knows himself, apart from his disclosure to us).

If "in himself" means "as he knows himself", then there's no point of debate. No one claims to know God the way God knows himself. But that does not imply that our knowledge of God - that which He has disclosed - is itself different than what He knows. Those propositions that God has revealed to us are a part of God's knowledge, if "knowing God truly" is possible.

... "The essence of God is incomprehensible." .
... "What the divine essence is in itself must be inaccessible to our intellect"
These seem to be platitudes at best and incoherent at worst. What is the "divine essence"? And if God has not revealed the answer, then this amounts to "we don't know what we don't know".

We can and must know God truly, but not as he is in himself considered apart from his self-disclosure to us.

It seems the problem is mainly one of clarity. Why not simply say, we don't know God they way God knows himself? There seems to be confusion regarding what "in se" means. And then the question "what do we know concerning God in himself" really asks "what do we know of God the way God himself knows?" And the answer is nothing. The way God knows is eternally and comprehensively. The way we know is by revelation and not comprehensively. So the "way" we know is contrary to the "way" God knows.

I think some of the confusion is with the term "incomprehensible". Most will understand this to mean "impossible to understand". But if God is impossible to understand, then we can not know Him truly. The second meaning is "limitless: lacking or incapable of having limits". This definition correctly describes God's infinite knowledge.

So what am I missing?
 
These seem to be platitudes at best and incoherent at worst. What is the "divine essence"? And if God has not revealed the answer, then this amounts to "we don't know what we don't know".
Do you consider the historic creeds and the Westminster Confession to consist of platitudes and incoherencies when they utilize essentially the same language?
Chapter II
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity

I. There is but one only,1 living, and true God, 2 who is infinite in being and perfection,3 a most pure spirit,4 invisible,5 without body, parts,6 or passions;7 immutable,8 immense,9 eternal,10 incomprehensible,11 almighty,12 most wise,13 most holy,14 most free,15 most absolute;16 working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,17 for His own glory;18 most loving,19 gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;20 the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;21 and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,22 hating all sin,23 and who will by no means clear the guilty.24

II. God has all life,25 glory,26 goodness,27 blessedness,28 in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made,29 nor deriving any glory from them,30 but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;31 and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases.32 In His sight all things are open and manifest,33 His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,34 so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.35 He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.36 To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.37

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost:38 the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;39 the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.40
Which portions would you highlight as platitude and incoherent?

It seems the problem is mainly one of clarity. Why not simply say, we don't know God they way God knows himself? There seems to be confusion regarding what "in se" means. And then the question "what do we know concerning God in himself" really asks "what do we know of God the way God himself knows?" And the answer is nothing. The way God knows is eternally and comprehensively. The way we know is by revelation and not comprehensively. So the "way" we know is contrary to the "way" God knows.
Are you asking why theologians don't use the language that you prefer here? I actually don't find your definition helpful or complete.
I think some of the confusion is with the term "incomprehensible". Most will understand this to mean "impossible to understand".
Not if you define your terms properly and they do not mean what you state they mean when they use the term.

From the Athanasian Creed:
8. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

I'm trying to be friendly Anthony but you do realize that you're taking on the history of Christian theology here (especially Reformed formulations of them).
 
There must be some crossed wires here. Dickson did not attend the Assembly. There was talk of a Directory in Scotland with which Dickson was associated; but the Solemn League and Covenant put an end to it.

Matthew,

Thanks for the clarification.

I realized that he was not at the Assembly and I was confused by the reference to a "directory." Your explanation makes sense.

rsc
 
Do you consider the historic creeds and the Westminster Confession to consist of platitudes and incoherencies when they utilize essentially the same language?
If you mean they use the same terms, they do use some. But the quotes I mentioned go beyond what the WCF says.
... "The essence of God is incomprehensible." .
... "What the divine essence is in itself must be inaccessible to our intellect"
I do not find their sentiments in the WCF. The WCF is an fine example of cogent and coherent thought.

Are you asking why theologians don't use the language that you prefer here? ...
I suggesting that some theologians are less than cogent when expressing what could be fairly simple ideas. The language they use is not important, the concepts they are trying to communicate are.

And I'm suggesting that maybe there is some confusion regarding what historical theologians meant by incomprehensible. I would like someone familiar with the history to tell me if incomprehensible is meant as "impossible to understand" as some here seem to suggest, or does it mean the equally valid definition of being without limit.

BTW I did not make up these definitions, I looked them up.
in·com·pre·hen·si·ble [in kòmpri hénsəb’l]
adjective
1. beyond understanding: impossible or very difficult to understand
2. limitless: lacking or incapable of having limits (archaic)


[14th century. From Latin incomprehensibilis , literally “not comprehensible,” from comprehendere (see comprehend).]
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Notice that the second definitions is "archaic" which means "no longer in ordinary language". And since we're are talking about writings that a hundreds of years old, I suspect the confusion regarding the meaning of the incomprehensibility of God has to do with imposing a modern definition instead of the historical definition.

My desire is to find out how the term is defined by the persons using it. It would be silly to impose my preferred definitions on someone else's statements.

By the way, are you familiar with the historical definition of person? It isn't what you might assume.

From the Athanasian Creed:
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
And what did they mean by incomprehensible?

I'm trying to be friendly Anthony but you do realize that you're taking on the history of Christian theology here (especially Reformed formulations of them).
It's good that you are trying to be friendly, but nothing I am saying is directed at you personally, so there's no call for you to be unfriendly. And even if I were "taking on the history of Christian theology" instead of trying to make sense out of it, it still would not warrant your being anything less than friendly.

Rather than taking on historical reformed theology, I am trying to assume that most historical reformed theologians were sensible and not simply spewing pious sounding platitudes. I'm sure that some will take offense, but I don't consider quotes of theologians themselves as primary authority. The primary authority is the Scriptures, the WCF and creeds are secondary, and the writings of the fathers are a distant third. And not all of the fathers produced sound doctrine. So I will not assume otherwise.
 
Athanasian Creed:

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

and the original Latin:

8. Increatus Pater: increatus Filius: increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
 
A negation is not knowledge of a thing in itself, but a statement as to what a thing is not. Incommunicable attributes are negations, whereby creaturely imperfection is denied to God. Ergo, a claim to know the incommunicable attributes is not a claim to know God in and of Himself, but rather a humble confession that God exceeds our creaturely limitations.
 
A good example of some of this discussion is the doctrine of the trinity: one God who exists as three Persons. This is a truth about God that we would have no way of knowing if God had not revealed it to us in Scripture. There is no way we humans could have discerned the trinitarian nature of God from general revelation alone; nor could we have discovered its truth just by pondering about God with our feeble human brains. It took special revelation; God had to make the first move for us to know this. Otherwise, God's trinitarian nature would be unknowable.

Regarding how much we can know about God as He is in Himself: Deuteronomy 29:29 is a very important passage of Scripture; good for thinking about theology; good as a hermeneutical principle when studying Scripture.
 
Athanasian Creed:

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

and the original Latin:

8. Increatus Pater: increatus Filius: increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.

OK, then number 9:
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
Does the original even have numbers in it?
 
A negation is not knowledge of a thing in itself, but a statement as to what a thing is not. Incommunicable attributes are negations, whereby creaturely imperfection is denied to God. Ergo, a claim to know the incommunicable attributes is not a claim to know God in and of Himself, but rather a humble confession that God exceeds our creaturely limitations.

What are you referring to? Are you responding to: "The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated." That is a communicable attribute of God.

A claim to know the incommunicable attributes is nonsenses. (Please, I am referring to the idea, not any person.)

The statement "The Father uncreated" is a positive statement with negative term. By the negative term implies a positive - so that we see the implication that God is eternal.

Are you endorsing to Negative Theology. Surely not.
 
Sure. I, II, III, IV, V ... :cheers2:

It's just strange because I found a bunch of different variants online. I need to change the version on the temeculaopc.org website if the numbering is incorrect. Are you certain that your numbering is accurate?
 
It's just strange because I found a bunch of different variants online. I need to change the version on the temeculaopc.org website if the numbering is incorrect. Are you certain that your numbering is accurate?

No, but it would be interesting to see what's different. Maybe your copy has the same statements in a different order.

Here's where I found the Latin "original": http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html

At the end are some notes on the Creed itself which might answer the question - I haven't read it all yet.
 
I noticed the Latin for incomprehensible is immensus which means immense , vast, boundless. So it appears that the definition "impossible to understand" is not acceptable.

Then it seems that you have a weird view of "understanding". We understand bounds, we do not understand boundless.

CT
 
A good example of some of this discussion is the doctrine of the trinity: one God who exists as three Persons. This is a truth about God that we would have no way of knowing if God had not revealed it to us in Scripture. There is no way we humans could have discerned the trinitarian nature of God from general revelation alone; nor could we have discovered its truth just by pondering about God with our feeble human brains. It took special revelation; God had to make the first move for us to know this. Otherwise, God's trinitarian nature would be unknowable.

Regarding how much we can know about God as He is in Himself: Deuteronomy 29:29 is a very important passage of Scripture; good for thinking about theology; good as a hermeneutical principle when studying Scripture.

Somewhat related quote by David Calhoun:

"I would suggest two areas of concern that I would like to express to the Federal Vision advocates—concerns that Waters has clarified for me with his presentation and critique of their teaching.

One. The Federal Vision theology tends toward speculation, especially in its views of the Trinity. Its discussion of the inner workings of the Trinity (as covenant within the Godhead) goes beyond the limits of biblical revelation and probes into "God as He is in Himself"—a depth of understanding that, according to Calvin, has not been revealed to us. We can only know "God as He is toward us," and with that knowledge we must be satisfied."

CT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top