I concur with your sense that imagining God's knowledge as "propositional" is a profound mistake. It risks turning God into an object in the world, in a sense -- rather than the one in whom we live, move, and have our being. If scripture itself is God's "baby-talk" to us (via Calvin), why would we think that propositional knowledge is higher than the "babble" that God has graciously given us, in a true revelation which is true in relation to our tiny capacities, but in no sense "adequate" in relation to God's knowledge?? I sense that Junius could be helpful holding this together...https://www.amazon.com/Treatise-True-Theology-Franciscus-Junius-ebook/dp/B00OU0G8T8/
I wonder whether there is something right and yet relatively superficial about the “intersubjective” idea. It's not "propositional" knowledge, a plus. But one really affirms—following, for example, Junius and the archetypal/ectypal distinction—that God’s knowledge of himself (archetypal) is qualitatively different from the knowledge in which we participate (ectypal), through the Son and by the Spirit, then we should not be especially optimistic that we can classify God’s self-knowledge as a “type” of knowledge which is intelligible to us.
What we can know, however, is that in our participatory knowledge God stoops to us like a nurse (Calvin), speaking “baby talk” that gives us real knowledge—knowledge inseparable from fellowship, and inseparable from the Spirit’s presence in us in Christ. It is shot through with God's astonishing love...
Haven't gone to look at Barth on this, but you know one of the classic ways of thinking about God's knowledge is his knowledge of his own potencies, capacities, etc. Of course, this is the Triune God's self-knowledge, knowledge possessed by and existing as the knowing, loving, and willing of the simple God who is Father, Son, and Spirit. Thinking around that dynamic probably has some payoff. Thanks!
I forget, how much do you do with divine simplicity? Just because with God's will, the first object of his will must necessary be God himself and he wills other creatures downstream from that and within it. There would be a corresponding logic to God's knowledge. I don't think it's divine navel-gazing so much as the intrinsic logic of God's perfect life in himself and logically prior to creation.
I do understand this in re to simplicity, which I uphold. The knowledge question, to me, is susceptible enough to projection that I’m giving it some thought. I am familiar with why I ought to affirm this 😇
Ya, sure, I mean, knowledge is something I have thought about, but not to the point of writing much. Curious to see what you do. I just don’t think it suffers from that challenge any more than the notion of willing the creature with reference to the creator does. Knowing/loving the logoi as derived of the Logos, etc. etc.
I have always understood God’s omniscience to include not just the idea of God knowing every thing (the propositional or—Enlightenment baggage alert—encyclopedic bits), but also his knowing what to do with that knowledge. I am of course talking about wisdom or knowledge that does what it is supposed to do, which I fold into omniscience. We love to reduce wisdom to aphorisms, but it is surely more than propositional, otherwise you would think more people would have learned the “facts” and become wise. Perhaps incorporating wisdom into your model might help?
Another thought, more controversial and maybe less helpful: I remember a lecture from Richard Lints where he suggested that maybe God is more than rational, in the sense that he is not limited or constrained by our definitions of what is rational (apologies to some of our natural theology friends). God is not irrational, but perhaps he is supra-rational, operating beyond whatever bound set we imagine rationality to include. Here again I feel Enlightenment assumptions about the universe shaping and limiting our categories.
I have a totally different question I'm going to ask, in hopes it intrigues you, and shifts your attention a little bit toward another direction.
I'm trying to figure out 'why I'm [still] here. The best answer I can come up with, is that 'God taught me many things, taking me down some paths not easy to navigate, to do so; and the wisdom gained in walking with Him is worth sharing with others who may benefit from it'.
Your perspective is intriguing. And has a soundness in it that is truly rare today.
What role do those with your very specialized and 'intense' training in 'theology' have that contributes to the building up and growth to maturity of the Body of Christ?
I'm not seeing 'edification' from many of our most visible 'theologians' today. I put the term in quotations, because I'm not sure I really know how you think of this term-what it means, what it's limits are; I think I've gleaned enough from what you've written to have a sense that the 'common definition' doesn't match your definition, which comes from actually being a theologian (or in your own words-a 'lady theologian', at times).
A position in a seminary on the faculty seems to be one of the places you have identified, as the place theologians are meant to fill. A friend, whose son has a doctorate in theology, told me once, that there are something like 5000 doctorates awarded each year, but only something like 50 open positions... which either means we are graduating way too many theologians who have invested considerable (incredible) time and resources to reach a point where they satisfy their 'intended peers' that they are true peers, as scholars in their field. I know the drill having met the criteria and served in another discipline (medicine; my degree being in Human Physiology). A couple decades after I'd been serving in faculty positions, I learned that about 7% of those who pursue faculty positions in academic medicine, achieve them. Had anyone said that early on, I would likely have either focussed more intentionally on what was required to achieve tenure (i had presumed that simply doing what was essential to the career itself, would be sufficient....but I was sadly mistaken, for a few key reasons that have nothing to do with scholarly capability or even scholarly accomplishments, actually, and a whole lot more to do with things we now are seeing quite openly in our world, which I don't need to elaborate, as such folly has become 'visible to all').
One could rightly ask, why train such an excess of theologians, if a mere 1 percent of them even have a chance to engage in the careers they trained for?
Or one might ask-is there something that faith communities could benefit from in a way that would allow those who have sacrificed much to gain skills and become true scholars in theology, that would also be of mutual benefit to many as well as to these highly trained and skilled scholars, that we are not 'seeing' at present?
I have my own thoughts in this regard, with respect to those who become scholars in the different disciplines of medicine. Just as medical care requires a rather extensive team of health care workers, with a diverse range of talents and abilities, in addition to the key individuals who have trained to be practitioners of medicine (and it's still called the 'practice' of medicine, for legitimate reasons; and I'm VERY thankful that we train 'practitioners' by old school methods of true 'side by side' discipleship...
Which is, I think, a strong clue for us to consider, in thinking about the roles that scholars highly trained in theology might fill in edifying 'the Body of Christ' in ways God's Word speaks to, rather extensively in the New Testament, but also, in the way we are given 'visual models' of spiritual realities, in the Old Testament.
Like Physicians and PhD scientists contribute, but a whole community engages to help people recover from sickness and disease, in academic medical centers, we need skilled practitioners and scholars trained in caring for the soul along with the diversity of people and gifts, the Spirit brings together, to help the Body of Christ build itself up to maturity in Christ, as Paul describes it in several places in his letters.
If we shift our perspective away from our current 'traditions' and do what scholars are very skilled at doing-'shift our paradigm' and re-establish it on what God's Word describes, and instructs us to do, we might be suprised to find that we have a LOT of needs where trained theologians are required, in the 'equipping of the saints for the work of ministry'.
It almost seems like we have shifted away from the model of 'being the Body of Christ' in which each of us has a unique role, to a very cultural and hierarchical-authoritarian structure.
Medicine, while having highly skilled practitioners in positions where they do operate with authority, still requires a lot of individuals and individual initiative, to ensure that people who come for help because of sickness and diseases they suffer from, are actually returned to wholeness, when possible.
There are masses of people with souls badly wounded, that come to churches-and find no one to help them...
I believe that theology scholars may be the ones that can help us recover a paradigm that isn't from our culture, but one that restores Jesus to Headship and respects the role of our Present Paraclete, in both gifting each of us, and inspiring us as we walk in love, building up one another, toward the goal of achieving, together, the fullness of maturity in Christ, Our Head, that God desires for us to reach.
I sought out scholars who had training and knowledge I lacked; I was trained in one of the basic sciences, which also taught me much about another; over the course of my career, thanks to many colleagues willing to share their knowledge with me, and areas of mutual interest we pursued together, i learned a lot more... but it's difficult to actually find theologians with the same kind of 'collegial spirit' or the simple honesty to admit how much they still don't know...
I freely acknowledge that, in spite of decades of intense pursuit of knowledge, there are many things in our Design that I have little knowledge of (and serving in clinical departments, I also freely admit with GREAT RESPECT, the abundance of 'practical' knowledge my physician colleagues acquired and put to good use! I saw them as they 'practiced' medicine, and saw the great benefit they brought to struggling and suffering people; and my goal was simply to help make their jobs easier, by finding better and more effective ways to intervene in diseases...
Our culture seems to have the dominant influence, even in our churches... theologians seem to be the scholars who can best show us the contrast between our present practices, and God's paradigms for life.
I think we need a radical change; even a 'return' to the model we were given, in the life of Jesus, in how we disciple others, equipping all 'the saints' for ministry, not just relegating ministry to a handful of full time 'professionals'...
My vocation took me into a 'learning community' where I was a 'principal' and 'principle LEARNER' as well. I modelled learning and spent much of my time, learning along side others who wanted to learn, and engage in 'advancing knowledge'; at all levels.
The church doesn't seem to function very well, as a 'learning community'. I can't even begin to imagine what learning would be like, if the scholars in medicine, gave a mere one hour lecture every week, to the whole community....
but that seems to be how we have chosen to learn, in our faith communities (with some additional things, as well).
I was ALWAYS both LEARNING and HELPING OTHERS learn, as one of the 'scholars' in medicine; I and my physician colleagues were both there 'to learn' and help each other learn, and help our whole COMMUNITY learn and advance our knowledge 'for the common good'.
WHY isn't this what those with our skills in the church-the scholars-are doing? It's not the lack of ability to learn and help others learn; but something 'structural' in the way we've become accustomed to function, in 'church culture'.
There is more for scholars to do, in 'theology' than ponder questions that academics ponder...and what might happen if we started finding new ways for scholars to engage in our faith communities?
I concur with your sense that imagining God's knowledge as "propositional" is a profound mistake. It risks turning God into an object in the world, in a sense -- rather than the one in whom we live, move, and have our being. If scripture itself is God's "baby-talk" to us (via Calvin), why would we think that propositional knowledge is higher than the "babble" that God has graciously given us, in a true revelation which is true in relation to our tiny capacities, but in no sense "adequate" in relation to God's knowledge?? I sense that Junius could be helpful holding this together...https://www.amazon.com/Treatise-True-Theology-Franciscus-Junius-ebook/dp/B00OU0G8T8/
I wonder whether there is something right and yet relatively superficial about the “intersubjective” idea. It's not "propositional" knowledge, a plus. But one really affirms—following, for example, Junius and the archetypal/ectypal distinction—that God’s knowledge of himself (archetypal) is qualitatively different from the knowledge in which we participate (ectypal), through the Son and by the Spirit, then we should not be especially optimistic that we can classify God’s self-knowledge as a “type” of knowledge which is intelligible to us.
What we can know, however, is that in our participatory knowledge God stoops to us like a nurse (Calvin), speaking “baby talk” that gives us real knowledge—knowledge inseparable from fellowship, and inseparable from the Spirit’s presence in us in Christ. It is shot through with God's astonishing love...
Baby talk, I can get behind. And hi, Todd, hope you are well!!!
Yes, great to connect, Kirsten -- hope you are well also!
Haven't gone to look at Barth on this, but you know one of the classic ways of thinking about God's knowledge is his knowledge of his own potencies, capacities, etc. Of course, this is the Triune God's self-knowledge, knowledge possessed by and existing as the knowing, loving, and willing of the simple God who is Father, Son, and Spirit. Thinking around that dynamic probably has some payoff. Thanks!
This just doesn’t do it for me. Not to be crass, but why do I care? It seems like divine navel gazing.
I forget, how much do you do with divine simplicity? Just because with God's will, the first object of his will must necessary be God himself and he wills other creatures downstream from that and within it. There would be a corresponding logic to God's knowledge. I don't think it's divine navel-gazing so much as the intrinsic logic of God's perfect life in himself and logically prior to creation.
I do understand this in re to simplicity, which I uphold. The knowledge question, to me, is susceptible enough to projection that I’m giving it some thought. I am familiar with why I ought to affirm this 😇
Ya, sure, I mean, knowledge is something I have thought about, but not to the point of writing much. Curious to see what you do. I just don’t think it suffers from that challenge any more than the notion of willing the creature with reference to the creator does. Knowing/loving the logoi as derived of the Logos, etc. etc.
It has to take a creative direction. Which is part of the fun and the challenge
This sort of reminds me of my mental experience trying to understand why the Ontological Argument ever worked for anyone.
I have always understood God’s omniscience to include not just the idea of God knowing every thing (the propositional or—Enlightenment baggage alert—encyclopedic bits), but also his knowing what to do with that knowledge. I am of course talking about wisdom or knowledge that does what it is supposed to do, which I fold into omniscience. We love to reduce wisdom to aphorisms, but it is surely more than propositional, otherwise you would think more people would have learned the “facts” and become wise. Perhaps incorporating wisdom into your model might help?
Another thought, more controversial and maybe less helpful: I remember a lecture from Richard Lints where he suggested that maybe God is more than rational, in the sense that he is not limited or constrained by our definitions of what is rational (apologies to some of our natural theology friends). God is not irrational, but perhaps he is supra-rational, operating beyond whatever bound set we imagine rationality to include. Here again I feel Enlightenment assumptions about the universe shaping and limiting our categories.
I have a totally different question I'm going to ask, in hopes it intrigues you, and shifts your attention a little bit toward another direction.
I'm trying to figure out 'why I'm [still] here. The best answer I can come up with, is that 'God taught me many things, taking me down some paths not easy to navigate, to do so; and the wisdom gained in walking with Him is worth sharing with others who may benefit from it'.
Your perspective is intriguing. And has a soundness in it that is truly rare today.
What role do those with your very specialized and 'intense' training in 'theology' have that contributes to the building up and growth to maturity of the Body of Christ?
I'm not seeing 'edification' from many of our most visible 'theologians' today. I put the term in quotations, because I'm not sure I really know how you think of this term-what it means, what it's limits are; I think I've gleaned enough from what you've written to have a sense that the 'common definition' doesn't match your definition, which comes from actually being a theologian (or in your own words-a 'lady theologian', at times).
A position in a seminary on the faculty seems to be one of the places you have identified, as the place theologians are meant to fill. A friend, whose son has a doctorate in theology, told me once, that there are something like 5000 doctorates awarded each year, but only something like 50 open positions... which either means we are graduating way too many theologians who have invested considerable (incredible) time and resources to reach a point where they satisfy their 'intended peers' that they are true peers, as scholars in their field. I know the drill having met the criteria and served in another discipline (medicine; my degree being in Human Physiology). A couple decades after I'd been serving in faculty positions, I learned that about 7% of those who pursue faculty positions in academic medicine, achieve them. Had anyone said that early on, I would likely have either focussed more intentionally on what was required to achieve tenure (i had presumed that simply doing what was essential to the career itself, would be sufficient....but I was sadly mistaken, for a few key reasons that have nothing to do with scholarly capability or even scholarly accomplishments, actually, and a whole lot more to do with things we now are seeing quite openly in our world, which I don't need to elaborate, as such folly has become 'visible to all').
One could rightly ask, why train such an excess of theologians, if a mere 1 percent of them even have a chance to engage in the careers they trained for?
Or one might ask-is there something that faith communities could benefit from in a way that would allow those who have sacrificed much to gain skills and become true scholars in theology, that would also be of mutual benefit to many as well as to these highly trained and skilled scholars, that we are not 'seeing' at present?
I have my own thoughts in this regard, with respect to those who become scholars in the different disciplines of medicine. Just as medical care requires a rather extensive team of health care workers, with a diverse range of talents and abilities, in addition to the key individuals who have trained to be practitioners of medicine (and it's still called the 'practice' of medicine, for legitimate reasons; and I'm VERY thankful that we train 'practitioners' by old school methods of true 'side by side' discipleship...
Which is, I think, a strong clue for us to consider, in thinking about the roles that scholars highly trained in theology might fill in edifying 'the Body of Christ' in ways God's Word speaks to, rather extensively in the New Testament, but also, in the way we are given 'visual models' of spiritual realities, in the Old Testament.
Like Physicians and PhD scientists contribute, but a whole community engages to help people recover from sickness and disease, in academic medical centers, we need skilled practitioners and scholars trained in caring for the soul along with the diversity of people and gifts, the Spirit brings together, to help the Body of Christ build itself up to maturity in Christ, as Paul describes it in several places in his letters.
If we shift our perspective away from our current 'traditions' and do what scholars are very skilled at doing-'shift our paradigm' and re-establish it on what God's Word describes, and instructs us to do, we might be suprised to find that we have a LOT of needs where trained theologians are required, in the 'equipping of the saints for the work of ministry'.
It almost seems like we have shifted away from the model of 'being the Body of Christ' in which each of us has a unique role, to a very cultural and hierarchical-authoritarian structure.
Medicine, while having highly skilled practitioners in positions where they do operate with authority, still requires a lot of individuals and individual initiative, to ensure that people who come for help because of sickness and diseases they suffer from, are actually returned to wholeness, when possible.
There are masses of people with souls badly wounded, that come to churches-and find no one to help them...
I believe that theology scholars may be the ones that can help us recover a paradigm that isn't from our culture, but one that restores Jesus to Headship and respects the role of our Present Paraclete, in both gifting each of us, and inspiring us as we walk in love, building up one another, toward the goal of achieving, together, the fullness of maturity in Christ, Our Head, that God desires for us to reach.
I sought out scholars who had training and knowledge I lacked; I was trained in one of the basic sciences, which also taught me much about another; over the course of my career, thanks to many colleagues willing to share their knowledge with me, and areas of mutual interest we pursued together, i learned a lot more... but it's difficult to actually find theologians with the same kind of 'collegial spirit' or the simple honesty to admit how much they still don't know...
I freely acknowledge that, in spite of decades of intense pursuit of knowledge, there are many things in our Design that I have little knowledge of (and serving in clinical departments, I also freely admit with GREAT RESPECT, the abundance of 'practical' knowledge my physician colleagues acquired and put to good use! I saw them as they 'practiced' medicine, and saw the great benefit they brought to struggling and suffering people; and my goal was simply to help make their jobs easier, by finding better and more effective ways to intervene in diseases...
Our culture seems to have the dominant influence, even in our churches... theologians seem to be the scholars who can best show us the contrast between our present practices, and God's paradigms for life.
I think we need a radical change; even a 'return' to the model we were given, in the life of Jesus, in how we disciple others, equipping all 'the saints' for ministry, not just relegating ministry to a handful of full time 'professionals'...
My vocation took me into a 'learning community' where I was a 'principal' and 'principle LEARNER' as well. I modelled learning and spent much of my time, learning along side others who wanted to learn, and engage in 'advancing knowledge'; at all levels.
The church doesn't seem to function very well, as a 'learning community'. I can't even begin to imagine what learning would be like, if the scholars in medicine, gave a mere one hour lecture every week, to the whole community....
but that seems to be how we have chosen to learn, in our faith communities (with some additional things, as well).
I was ALWAYS both LEARNING and HELPING OTHERS learn, as one of the 'scholars' in medicine; I and my physician colleagues were both there 'to learn' and help each other learn, and help our whole COMMUNITY learn and advance our knowledge 'for the common good'.
WHY isn't this what those with our skills in the church-the scholars-are doing? It's not the lack of ability to learn and help others learn; but something 'structural' in the way we've become accustomed to function, in 'church culture'.
There is more for scholars to do, in 'theology' than ponder questions that academics ponder...and what might happen if we started finding new ways for scholars to engage in our faith communities?