Knowledge of God in himself

[ChristianTrader]

So God is "impossible to understand"?! In which case, we do not know God truly as Dr. Clark asserts.

Who said we cannot understand God? It has been clearly stated that his essense aka "Him in Himself" cannot be understood. Fortunately for us God also relates to us unessentially. For example in the incarnation, God took on non essential features and interacted with us.

CT

 

[Civbert]

Who said we cannot understand God? It has been clearly stated that his essense aka "Him in Himself" cannot be understood. Fortunately for us God also relates to us unessentially. For example in the incarnation, God took on non essential features and interacted with us.

CT

So then incomprehensible does not mean "impossible to understand".

 

[ChristianTrader]

So then incomprehensible does not mean "impossible to understand".

How does that question follow in any way from what I wrote previously?

CT

 

[Civbert]

How does that question follow in any way from what I wrote previously?

CT

Which question are you responding to?

I can answer a question with a question too.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=258135&postcount=30

 

[Dieter Schneider]

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'.

 

[Civbert]

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”.

My question to you is this - should one also deduce those truths which follow from Scripture by good and necessary consequence?

 

[Dieter Schneider]

My question to you is this - should one also deduce those truths which follow from Scripture by good and necessary consequence?

Your question has no bearing on what God has not revealed about Himself. One cannot speak of God by speaking about man - in a loud voice (ok this thought is not original). I think that in relation to the hiddeness of God you are entering forbidden territory -Calvin warns of ending up in a labyrinth. Let God be God! Psalm 131 is a wonderful Psalm.
Every blessing,

Dieter

 

[MW]

What are you referring to?

The OP.

 

[Civbert]

Your question has no bearing on what God has not revealed about Himself. One cannot speak of God by speaking about man - in a loud voice (ok this thought is not original). I think that in relation to the hiddeness of God you are entering forbidden territory -Calvin warns of ending up in a labyrinth. Let God be God! Psalm 131 is a wonderful Psalm.
Every blessing,

Dieter

Certainly it does. God reveals himself in Scripture. Since these are true, then so too are all things we can deduce from those truths.

Do then you believe those things we can deduce from Scripture are "forbidden territory"? Or are you strictly speaking of deductions that tell us who God is. For instance the Doctrine of the Trinity.

What is this "hiddeness of God".

Let me make this statement - anything that can be deduced about God from those things He has revealed to us in Scripture, are themselves effectively revealed - they are neccessarily true. Those things we can deduce by good and necessary consequences about God, are not by definition of the "hiddeness of God". So I see no chance of entering "forbidden territory". I believe we have a mandate from God to work out the meaning of Scripture - to study and digest it. This requires us to use our God given ability to reason logically to produce a systematic theology.

 

[Civbert]

The OP.

What is the OP?