1. Is God knowable?

Yes, Scripture teaches this: “that we may know the One who is true” (1 John 5:20), although it also reminds us of the limited character of our knowledge (Matt 11:25).

2. In what sense do Reformed theologians maintain that God cannot be known?

a) Insofar as we can have only an incomplete understanding of an infinite being.

b) Insofar as we cannot give a definition of God but only a description.

3. On what ground do others deny God’s knowability?

On the ground that God is All-Being. They have a pantheistic view of God. Now, knowing presumes that the object known is not all there is, since it always remains distinct from the subject doing the knowing. Making God the object of knowledge, one reasons, is equivalent to saying that He is not all there is, that He is limited.

4. What response is to be made against this view?

a) The objection that this view presents stems entirely from a philosophical view of God, as if He were All-Being. This view is wrong. V 1, p 2 God is certainly infinite, but God is not the All. There are things that exist, whose existence is not identical with God.

b) It is certainly true that we cannot make a visible representation of God because He is a purely spiritual being. But we also cannot do that of our own soul. Yet we believe that we know it.

c) It is also true that we do not have an in-depth and comprehensive knowledge of God. All our knowledge, even with regard to created things, is in part. This is even truer of God. We only know Him insofar as He reveals Himself, that is, has turned His being outwardly for us. God alone possesses ideal knowledge of Himself and of the whole world, since He pervades everything with His omniscience.

d) That we are able to know God truly rests on the fact that God has made us in His own image, thus an impression of Himself, albeit from the greatest distance. Because we ourselves are spirit, possess a mind, will, etc., we know what it means when in His Word God ascribes these things to Himself.

For reasons explored later in the chapter, the object shifted in the modern era (with notable exceptions) from God and his works to humanity and its morality, spirituality, and experience. Science came to refer narrowly to the empirical sciences, and religion could only be a legitimate discipline only to the extent that it was studied as a natural phenomenon of culture. As a consequence, theology has become largely a subdiscipline of psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, or history of religions, even in universities with a Christian past. As we will see, theologians themselves pioneered this turn to the self in the hope of making Christianity more relevant and acceptable in our world.

This means that the only legitimate ontological distinction is between the uncreated God and the created world, not between spiritual and material realms. Ontological difference—the strangeness that makes us stand in awe of God’s majesty—is good.

Second, God is a stranger in a negative sense. Whereas the ontological difference is a good gift of our creation, ethical difference came about as a result of the fall, when Adam transgressed the original covenant. In this sense, God is not only qualitatively different from us but morally opposed to us.

1. Compare and contrast the three ontological paradigms explored in this chapter. Which is more consistent with a biblical worldview and why?

2. How does panentheism differ from pantheism?

3. How is Plato’s epistemology an application of his ontology?

4. Discuss the importance of Kant’s approach to the question of knowing God, especially as it influenced later thinkers. Can you recall conversations you have had with people who assume (perhaps unwittingly) Kant’s approach?

5. What is the significance of the archetypal-ectypal distinction, as well as the doctrine of analogy, in Christian epistemology?