Knowing God

[py3ak]

I know we've had some pretty intense discussions on the board lately, both as far as being intellectually challenging and emotionally involving. So I thought I'd post an easier theological point for us to discuss.

Turretin says: "Many things prove that there is a theology. (...) The nature of the thing because the two things requisite for the making up of a system (the to gnoston or knowable object, and the to gnostikon or knowing subject) are found here (viz., God, the most capable of being known of knowable things [ton episteton epistetotaton], and rational creatures endowed with intellects capable of gaining the knowledge of him)." (I.2,1)

Hendriksen says: "God’s very essence, by virtue of what it is, conceals him." (BNTC on 1 Timothy 6:16)

Is there a disagreement? If not, how can they be reconciled? Is it accurate to say that God is the most capable of being known of knowable things?

 

[lynnie]

This sounds like what is called the debate between presuppositionalism and evidentialism. If so ( dug out of an old email) some well known people line up as follows. I don't know if I'd call this easy theology...at least I can say it was one of the toughest Sunday School topics I ever sat through listening to bible verses on each side. I ended up P but have much respect for E's.

(If you didn't mean this I am sorry to misunderstand.)


Presuppositionalists:

Cornelius Van Til

Greg Bahnsen

William Edgar

John Frame

Gordon Clark

Rousas Rushdoony

Ronald Nash

Francis Schaeffer (multiple books list Scaeffer as P)

Richard Pratt

Douglass Wilson

John Calvin

Herman Dooyeweerd


Evidentialists

R.C. Sproul

John Warwick Montgomery

Norman Geisler

B.B. Warfield

William Lane Craig

Kim Riddlebarger



Some who integrate both:

Tim Keller

Carl Henry

E.J. Carnell

Michael Horton

 

[BobVigneault]

I don't see it as an epistemological difference. I believe Turretin is speaking of the things that can be known of God because he reveals them to us. God is knowable.

Without seeing the context I would guess that Hendriksen is dealing with the incomprehensible nature of God. God cannot be fully known even given eternity.

 

[py3ak]

I think you are right, Bob. The question is, what is the relationship between God's knowability and His incomprehensibility? Given that He is incomprehensible, is it accurate to say that He is the most capable of being known? Would not something comprehensible be more capable of being known?

 

[OPC'n]

Perhaps when he says "most" he speaks to that which we can understand and because it is His truths these truths are known in a depth of such great wisdom that knowing other things (math, Grammar, chemistry etc) pales in comparison to knowing His truths. So to know those things which we do know about God in His Word, is to know "most" because we have just learned about God. Learning one small detail about God is worth more than knowing what Einstein had accumulated in his brain. We can know other things outside of His Word, but if that is all we know we do not know "most". For when God teaches us His truths, we know in mind, heart, and action unto change...He is the utmost Teacher. I probably didn't say that very well. Hopefully you can get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

 

[Hippo]

I agree with Sarah, what God reveals are the only things that we actually know with certainty and in that sense they are the "most capable" of being known while at the same time the depths of what God does not tell us is truly incomprehensable to a creature.

 

[Mushroom]

So I thought I'd post an easier theological point for us to discuss.

Yeah, right, Ruben.... this one's a cakewalk.

 

[py3ak]

I knew you needed some relaxation, Brad.

 

[Theognome]

I think you are right, Bob. The question is, what is the relationship between God's knowability and His incomprehensibility? Given that He is incomprehensible, is it accurate to say that He is the most capable of being known? Would not something comprehensible be more capable of being known?

Something that can be known comprehensively by man (if this is even possible) would be by default finite- and like us would derive its particular nature from God Himself. Thus the said particular would, to a rational being, point the mind to God. So I would contend that the more comprehensive we know a thing, the more the thing adds to our knowledge of God. The implication here is that God by default becomes the most knowable to our perception- for everything gives witness of Him.

Theognome

 

[py3ak]

Interesting take, Bill. It bears thinking about.

 

[Theognome]

I'll admit that I don't like to use the term, 'comprehensively' to describe anything than mere man can know- in my view, true comprehensive knowledge of anything is solely a divine attribute. I prefer to use the term, 'fundamentally' instead.

Theognome

 

[py3ak]

When comprehensive is used strictly or as equivalent to "exhaustive" I would agree.

 

[Wannabee]

If we combined Sarah's and Bill's posts I think we would have a pretty rounded out answer to this light discussion. Good thoughts!

 

[MW]

A slightly different take -- that which can be comprehended is a part of the changing world, thus making its knowability somewhat shadowy. Scripture uses a fairly concrete metaphor for the unchanging trustworthiness of God when it calls Him the Rock.

 

[py3ak]

So far we have then, that God is the most capable of being known of knowable things:
1. Because of the excellence of the knowledge of God (Sarah)
2. Because all other knowledge leads us to knowledge of Him (Bill)
3. Because the knowledge of Him is far more stable than the knowledge of other things (Mr. Winzer).
4. Because He reveals Himself (Bob, Mike).

I think I came across Turretin's answer to the question is in I.5.8.

But if any singular, immaterial and in the pure act is presented, science can undoubtedly appropriate it because being is an object of intellect. Therefore the more perfect a being is, the more can he be known and apprehended; and he is the more perfect, the more he is in act and the less in potency.

Therefore God is the most capable of being known of knowable things, because He is actus purissimus and there is no potentiality in Him.

Thanks for the discussion! I put a note on my blog to remind me of what I have learned.

 

[ChristianTrader]

As far as Hendriksen's comment, I think it can be explained by saying that God's essense cannot be known by the five senses. Denying God is a bit different from denying a bus or a baseball bat. That however does not imply that anyone has an excuse for not knowing God.