.
Order of Contents
Articles 6+
Historical 1
Knowing God 1
Latin 4+
Biblio 1
.
Articles
1200’s
Aquinas, Thomas – Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 1
ch. 3, ‘In what way it is possible to make known the divine truth’
.
1600’s
Cheynell, Francis – pp. 3-7 of ch. 1, ‘The Godhead is Spiritual, Infinite, Incomprehensible’ in The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit (1650)
Cheynell was a Westminster divine.
.
1700’s
De Moor, Bernard – 11. ‘Incomprehensibility of God’ in Continuous Commentary, ch. 4, ‘On God’
“But, on account of the impossibility of a fully adequate comprehension of God, nevertheless all conception of God is not to be denied to man, as if finite man is in no way able to form a concept of the infinite, as [Thomas] Hobbes [d. 1679] maintains, against whom Cocquius¹ disputes concerning this matter, in his Anatome Hobbesianismi, locus VI, chapter XII, pages 114-118…
¹ Gisbertus Cocquius (1630-1708) of Utrecht was a Reformed thinker and doctor of philosophy; he opposed Hobbes.
Compare also Heidanus² in his Consideratien, etc., pages 134-138, upon occasion of this thesis, proscribed by the curators of the Academy of Leiden, that ‘Men have an adequate idea of God.’
² Abraham Heidanus (1597-1678) was a Dutch Reformed minister and Cocceian theologian. He served as professor of theology at Leiden from 1648 to 1676, but he was ultimately dismissed for his Cartesianism.”
.
1800’s
Thornwell, James H. – Lecture 4, ‘The Nature & Limits of our Knowledge of God’ ToC in Theological Lectures in Collected Writings, vol. 1 (1871), pp. 104-43
Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 1, ‘The Knowability of God’ in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 1, pp. 11-12
“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 Go but only a description.
…
4. What response is to be made against this [pantheistic] view?
…
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.”
.
2000’s
Feser, Edward – ‘Incomprehensibility’ in ‘The Divine Attributes’ in Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Ignatius Press, 2017)
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Muller, Richard – A. ‘Knowledge of God & the Divine Incomprehensibility’ ToC in PRRD, vol. 3, pp. 164-70
.
On being able to Know God in some Fashion & Measure in Light of his Incomprehensibility
See also, ‘Of God, the Knowledge of God & of his Attributes’ and ‘Will We ‘See’ God’s Essence?’
.
Quote
1700’s
Jean-Alphonse Turretin
Dissertations on Natural Theology tr. William Crawford (d. 1737; Belfast: Magee, 1777), Theses concerning Natural Theology in General, pp. 5-6
“But if any one alleges that the human mind which is finite cannot possibly comprehend divine things which are infinite, we must here properly distinguish–For if by the word ‘comprehend’ be meant to comprehend perfectly, we are quite agreed. For we are entirely of the opinion that a perfect and adequate knowledge of divine matters is quite inconsistent with the imperfection of the human understanding.
But if by ‘comprehending’ be understood a clear and convincing knowledge, to a certain degree, the greatness of the objects in such enquiries is by no means inconsistent with this kind of knowledge. For what can the mind conceive greater than eternity? when we attempt to have a full and adequate conception of it, our understanding is quite aborbed by the idea: and yet that there is such a thing as eternity is one of the clearest and most evident truths, as we shall demonstrate in its proper place.”
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – (8) ‘Invisibility & Incomprehensibility’ in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 2, I. ‘Of God’, 4. Attributes of God in Specific, 1st Kind Abbr.
“…
Whether God is imaginable? It is denied.
…
Whether we know God immediately, whether in this life or in the future? It is denied.
Whether we may know him through intelligible species? It is affirmed.
Whether through proper species or indeed through species of creatures? It is distinguished.
From whence are those species? It is explained.
Whether the created intellect is able clearly and intuitively to see the essence of God? It is denied.
Whether the created intellect is able to comprehend the essence of God? It is denied.
Whether the essence of God is seen by any created intellect according to any created species? It is denied.
…
Whether the created intellect needs an intelligible species to see God? It is affirmed.
Whether the created intellect needs the light of glory to see God? It is distinguished.
Whether God is able to supply the activity of the light of glory? A curious question
Whether above natural cognition in the present life another cognition of God may hold through grace? It is affirmed.
Whether all beatific visions are equally perfect essentially? It is affirmed.
Whether all beatific visions are equally perfect accidentally? It is denied.
Whether it may prove that one vision is more perfect than another? It is explained and the question is curious.
…”
Heidegger, Johann H.
sect. 23, ‘He is Incomprehensible’ in Locus 3, ‘Of the Existence & Divinity of God’ in The Marrow of Christian Theology (Zurich, 1713), p. 48
sect. 38, ‘And He is Incomprehensible’ in Locus 3, ‘Of the Existence & Divinity of God’ in A Body of Christian Theology, Exhibiting True Doctrine, which is according to godliness (Tigur, 1700), vol. 1, p. 74
Heidegger (1633-1698)
.
1700’s
Van Til, Salomon – subsection 4, ‘Of the Incomprehensibility of God’ in A Compendium of Both Natural and Revealed Theology (Leiden, 1704; 1719), pt 1, Of the Knowledge [Cognitione] of God in Itself, ch. 1, ‘It is Agitated of God & his Attributes’, sect. 3, ‘Of the Attributes of Existence’, pp. 31-32
Holtzfus, Barthold – 5. ‘Of the Truth, Goodness, Primacy & Independency, Infinity, Incomprehensibleness, Eternity, Immensity, & Immutability of God’ in A Theological Tract on God, Attributes & the Divine Decrees, Three Academic Dissertations (1707), pp. 40-55
Holtzfus (1659-1717) was a reformed professor of philosophy and theology at Frankfurt.
Andala, Ruard – 5. ‘Of the Two Attributes of the Divine Essence & so a Sum of Perfect Consideration: the Infinity & Incomprehensibility of God’ in A System of Theological-Physical Metaphysics, containing a Compendium of Natural Theology: a Paraphrase of the Principles of the Philosophy of Renee Descartes... (Franeker, 1711), pt. 2, pp. 66-69
Andala (1665-1727) was a reformed-Cartesian professor of philosophy and theology at Franeker .
.
Bibliography
Article
1800’s
Malcom, Howard – ‘Incomprehensibility of God’ in Theological Index… (Boston, 1868), p. 234
.
.
.
Related Pages