Esther Meeks and the Theory of Knowledge
- Thread starter natewood3
- Start date
- Status
This book is very good (we read are required to read it at Westminster) with at least one qualification (Meeks points this qualification out as well).
Meeks argues that knowing God is like knowing an automechanic. Meek's qualification is that knowing God is far superior to an automechanic, because, unlike an automechanic, God is wholly other; but, the analogy is good in that it shows knowing God is personal. It, therefore, moves beyond simply knowing God epistemically; knowing God is also existential/ethical with all the difficulties that come with knowing someone existentially (for example, your wife or automechanic). It requires personal trust and epistemic surrender, even if we don't have complete certainty (the way God has it) on all matters. God requires a certain measure of epistemic and existential trust, which Adam failed to give him in Eden. He wanted to know just like God.
In fact, quite a few people on this board (read: Clarkians) fail to realize that our logic is like God's. It's similiar, not exact. To attempt to uphold such argumentation would be to dreadfully bridge the gap between the creator/creature distinction, which reformed theology vigorously defends. There are just some places our logic can't take us. Calvin often said that one should not tread on the secret counsel of God, when he was pressed to conclude exactly what God precluded from explanation. Logic only solves the problems God allows it to unravel. When it's at its witt's end, it submits to the one who's worthy of utmost trust, being exponentially wiser than everyone, anywhere.
Meeks demonstrates all of this (he doesn't bash Clarkians or even talk about them) in a readable and engaging fashion. I'm sure that you'll find it worth Amazon's price. I would give it to my mom, which is to say that it is very simple, but, it, nevertheless, maintains sophistication.
Meeks argues that knowing God is like knowing an automechanic. Meek's qualification is that knowing God is far superior to an automechanic, because, unlike an automechanic, God is wholly other; but, the analogy is good in that it shows knowing God is personal. It, therefore, moves beyond simply knowing God epistemically; knowing God is also existential/ethical with all the difficulties that come with knowing someone existentially (for example, your wife or automechanic). It requires personal trust and epistemic surrender, even if we don't have complete certainty (the way God has it) on all matters. God requires a certain measure of epistemic and existential trust, which Adam failed to give him in Eden. He wanted to know just like God.
In fact, quite a few people on this board (read: Clarkians) fail to realize that our logic is like God's. It's similiar, not exact. To attempt to uphold such argumentation would be to dreadfully bridge the gap between the creator/creature distinction, which reformed theology vigorously defends. There are just some places our logic can't take us. Calvin often said that one should not tread on the secret counsel of God, when he was pressed to conclude exactly what God precluded from explanation. Logic only solves the problems God allows it to unravel. When it's at its witt's end, it submits to the one who's worthy of utmost trust, being exponentially wiser than everyone, anywhere.
Meeks demonstrates all of this (he doesn't bash Clarkians or even talk about them) in a readable and engaging fashion. I'm sure that you'll find it worth Amazon's price. I would give it to my mom, which is to say that it is very simple, but, it, nevertheless, maintains sophistication.
- Status
