If we give the impression that we can “define” God, I'm afraid of using language in such a way that “captures” God.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that justice is a “creation” of God; but creation is an expression, a revelation of who God is like justice, etc. That's how I was using the analogy.

And God doesn't trascend who he is; he transcends the finite categories we use to speak of him.

Thanks for the discussion.

“But if God is the source of Justice, or Goodness (again, notice the capitals), then he must also transcend the category as well just as he is the source of the universe, while transcending it.”

I don't think that analogy works. I don't think Justice is created–it's part of His character, and as such, it has always existed. So my question is, how is it you think He transcends His own character? (In other words, it seems non-sensical to me to say God transcends Justice because that's like saying God transcends who He is.)

Brian, thanks for sticking it out here. I can't tell you how happy it makes me that we were finally able to get this straight!

You said, “I think we do have categories (justice, goodness, faithfulness, etc.) that accurately describe God's character, but you think that if we describe God with these categories (and really believe they're true and more than just words) that we're “putting God in a box,” so to speak” (my emphasis). There is a huge difference between “describe” and “define”. I certainly DO think the categories of justice, goodness, faithfulness, and the like describe God, but they don't define God. My my point is “why?” And my answer is “God is the origin, condition and goal of these categories.” God is the source of Justice, including our use, understanding and execution of it. But if God is the source of Justice, or Goodness (again, notice the capitals), then he must also transcend the category as well just as he is the source of the universe, while transcending it.

Again, my fear is thinking we can take the finite symbol system of predication (language) and somehow make God subservient to it. I know others don't want to do that either, but I fear it happens more than we think.

“But do we? Is there a category that God “fits” into? I don't think so.”

So I think we disagree, but I'm not exactly sure. I think we do have categories (justice, goodness, faithfulness, etc.) that accurately describe God's character, but you think that if we describe God with these categories (and really believe they're true and more than just words) that we're “putting God in a box,” so to speak. I'm unclear how you square this with your statement that we can speak intelligently and accurately about him because these two things seem contradictory to me. How do you talk accurately about God without using categories we can understand? But then how do you use categories we can understand without “calling God finite”?

I'm going to have to move on to my next post (though I'm still very interested in hearing your clarification), but I'm sure this will all come up again and maybe we can more precisely define our differences from a different angle.

Thanks for the discussion!

When the Bible speaks of “knowing God,” both the Hebrew word (yada) and the Greek word (ginosko) mean something more than propositional knowledge (the Greek word oida is used for something more like propositional knowledge). They refer to an experienced knowledge, which in the case of personal relationships can be called “personal knowledge.” That's why the same word can be used to say that Adam “knew” his wife and she became pregnant.

However it is important to note that personal and propositional knowledge are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is impossible to have personal knowledge without some propositional knowledge as well. How could you “know” someone without knowing a single fact about that person? It would be a sort of pure existential experience, about which you could not say anything more than “I had an experience.” Anything more that you say implies some propositional content.

Brian has a good point above when he says “I could write for you a 1000 page book about her, but you wouldn't know her like I know her.” Knowing lots of facts about a person isn't the same as “knowing” him or her in a personal sense. But if someone said “I know my wife, but I can't make a single factual statement about her” then I think we would be justified in questioning whether he really knew her at all or that such a person even existed.

Well said! I wonder if this issue can be clarified by making the distinction between propositional knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance. To know God by way of propositional knowledge would be to know, for example, that God is faithful. In this sense, we can know fully that God is faithful. Knowing God by way of acquaintence, for example, experiencing the faithfulness of God, by definition would be a partial knowledge, for we have not experienced the extent of God's faithfulness, even though we know, propositionally (and fully), that God is faithful. Could this be a way to make sense of our knowledge with respect to God? On the one hand, we fully propositionally know that God is faithful but we only partially know about God's faithfulness by way of our direct experience of God's faithfulness.

I'm not sure, but it seems like in at least a portion of the discussion above Brian was saying that God cannot be placed in any (single) category, while Brian was saying that God can be placed in (several) of our categories. We can't “categorize” God in the sense of giving an exhaustive definition of Him, but we can make true statements, and that necessarily involves the use of categories.

It seems like everyone agrees that we can understand truth about God, but that our understanding is and always will be incomplete. So perhaps this is like the chair example. We can make true statements about God (e.g. “God is just”), but those statements are limited in two ways: (1) God's justice goes beyond what we can understand about justice, and (2) any number of such statements are incomplete as a total description of God.

As Paul wrote, “we see in a mirror dimly.” We can know true truth about God, but our knowledge is always incomplete. The problem that I have with the post-modern view of truth is that they deny that we can have any true knowledge of God or anything else, but that we can only create meaning for ourselves through our language.

To me, your position leads us to conclude that the categories of love, joy, peace and the like are either independent of God which he ascribes to or greater than God, which contradicts the meta-distinction that St. Anslem articulated so well. Only if God is the source of the categories and transcends them will he remain infinite. This also enables us to understand them in light of God's revelation and understand aspects about God.

I'm very comfortable with where I'm at on my journey understanding the infinite nature of God. I certainly need to grow and I'm certain that my position will morph. But when I had learned that by my language and understanding of God, I actually conceived God in finite terms like other objects that I encounter in this world, I was liberated to view God as he has revealed himself to us. And understanding the meta-distinction has allowed me to understand God's sovereignty and human freedom, the incarnation, are participation with God as 2 Peter 1 promises in ways that don't lead me to saying, “Well, I don't know how this makes sense, but I'll believe it anyway.” Rather than pushing the mystery button at the end of the argument when I've run into an apparent contradiction (e.g. God is absolutely sovereign over all the earth, yet my agency is free), I've been able to see the mystery within the infinite trinitarian nature of God in the beginning of the argument where I'm free from trying to “solve” anything.

I mention these things because when I was confronted with what I call my faulty views of God, I felt liberated to conceive of God differently, in fact, more connected to the biblical witness because I wasn't confined to the arguments and presumptions that have plagued evangelical theology for quite some time.

I feel like I'm preaching. Sorry, I've done that once already today, I don't need to do it again.