My bit!
B. B. Warfield, with reference to the subject under review, rightly claims that “at the root of all lies Calvin’s profound persuasion that this is a subject too high for human speculation and his consequent fixed resolve to eschew all theoretical constructions upon it, and to confine himself strictly to the revelations of Scripture”.
Calvin constantly warns his readers against trespassing beyond the boundaries of Scripture. Luther's position is worth studying, too, for which see
www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherstheologyofthecross.html.
Both Calvin and Luther refused to ground their theology in philosophy. Faith must rest content with Deut.29:29. Our epistemological starting point, in other words, is the 'given' by God ('senkrecht von oben').
The 'infinite, qualitative difference' (I have borrowed Kirekegaard's terminology which does not mean I endorse him, but I believe, with Calvin, that all truth is God's truth) can be related to our epistemic distance to God (who, also in the Incarnate Son, is 'wholly other') both in a metaphysical (we are finite) and an ethical (the noetic effect of sin) sense. In this connection it is worth pointing to how Calvin starts his Institutes! In passing let it be remembered that he has no ‘locus de Deo’.
Calvin also rightly insists that God accommodates Himself to make communication possible, hence, e.g., the use of anthropomorphic God language (The Institutes 1.13.1). Our knowledge of God is never exhaustive, but true, nevertheless and sufficient.
Our ultimate concern may be summed up in Calvin's words again: “It is not so much our concern to know who he is in Himself, as what he wills to be toward us” (The Institutes, 3.2.6). It is possible to study theology without knowing God at all! Interestingly enough. Melanchthon rightly says of Christ, 'to know Christ is to know His benefits'.
