Abstract
The contemporary mindset often posits that certain elements of reality, such as logic, time, space, chance, and human freedom, are more foundational than the concept of God. This perspective fosters a notion of human autonomy, suggesting that for knowledge to be deemed true, it must be fully comprehensive. Consequently, the modern individual seeks to construct a complete understanding of the world (independently of God) through an atomistic approach, where knowledge is pieced together from individual, discrete facts (as it is quite clear that we can never as humans know all the facts in a completely systemised fashion). In this framework, the concept of God, perceived as distant and not directly observable in our immediate experiences, is often sidelined or deemed irrelevant. The prevailing view is that discussing a seemingly remote deity holds no theoretical value in the context of everyday life and tangible reality, and is altogether meaningless as nothing can be known of a distant transcendent deity anyway.
The assertion by theologians that God has disclosed His nature through the Bible encounters scepticism, particularly concerning the human language used in Scripture. Critics argue that since the Bible is composed of human words, our comprehension of these words is inherently limited to our human experiences and understanding (that is, our existing atomistic and comprehensive understanding of the words, and our own cultural background and experiences). Consequently, this limitation raises critical and devastating questions about the ability of human language to accurately convey the nature of a transcendent and incomprehensible God. For example, when the Bible describes God as "eternal", it cannot mean anything other than that God has existed for "a very long time" - yet, a very old God is not the incomprehensible and transcendent God of the Bible. The concept of God then becomes a purely practical and subjective matter - each man thinks he knows God, yet it's merely a projection of human categories on the part of each person.
In Christian thought, particularly within Reformed theology, the doctrine of the Trinity (God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) takes central significance. The doctrine of perichoresis, a key aspect of Trinitarian theology, posits that each person of the Trinity mutually indwells the others, meaning the Father, Son, and Spirit are each fully present in one another. This mutual indwelling implies that each person of the Trinity exhaustively comprehends and contains the others to an infinite degree. Consequently, one cannot consider any one person of the Trinity without simultaneously encountering the full presence of the others, epitomizing the unity and self-sufficiency of the Triune God.
The Trinitarian God, as the creator of all that exists outside of Himself, shapes our reality according to His divine plan. Everything in creation derives its nature and purpose from this divine decree, with the entire creation being ultimately related to the Father through the Son. As the Son both comprehends the Father and creation, the Son acts as the mediator between God and creation. Creation exists within the sustaining embrace of God, yet it does not encapsulate or define God. Thus, in God, we find our existence, movement, and purpose, as stated in Acts 17. Thus, we are not finally related to God via some greater impersonal reality (e.g., space, time, logic), but through the mediation of the Son.
Thus, rejecting the notion of comprehensive, atomistic knowledge, Christianity asserts that complete understanding is not a prerequisite for true knowledge. In this framework, the Son eternally and infinitely comprehends the Father, and in doing so, brings forth creation as a finite reflection of this divine understanding. Through creation, the Son reveals the nature of the Father (John 1). Consequently, all knowledge in creation is analogical, meaning that while our understanding is not as comprehensive as God's, it is still true. This truth stems from its foundation in God’s infinite rationality and the interconnectedness of the human mind (the subject) and the objects of creation within God’s unified plan for the universe.
The answer therefore lies in challenging the foundation or starting point of modernist philosophies, which assume the ultimacy of the human mind, rather than God Himself.
Introduction
The Westminster Shorter Catechism gives a well-known description of God. It says...
God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.
The chapters that follow are like a journey to understand this description better and to figure out what it means for us today. But a big question pops up: How can we, as humans, talk about a God who is described as infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in every way? This question gets even more interesting when we consider the Westminster Confession of Faith, which adds more to this description...
There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
The Creator-creature distinction is thus clearly established by the preceding. We now turn to consider the implications of the Creator-creature distinction on the Creator-creature relation. I have touched on this in a previous article (Analogical knowledge of God and the Clark-Van Til controversy), but, after having read the preceding article again, I find myself still seeking a clearer answer.
From the scriptural depictions of a God who "dwells in unapproachable light" to the theological musings of mystics, theologians, and believers across centuries, the Christian faith has consistently affirmed the incomprehensibility of God. Yet, this same tradition holds that God is knowable, lovingly revealing Himself to humanity. Through an exploration of historical perspectives, the role of nature in divine revelation, and the human experience of God, this article seeks to unravel the complexities of knowing an incomprehensible God. How do we make sense of the infinite within the confines of our finite understanding? This is the question at the heart of our current exploration.
In approaching this profound question, our exploration will be grounded in what God has revealed to us through His Word. We will also draw on two giants who went before: Cornelius Van Til, and Brant Bosserman. We start by following Van Til in chapter 13 of his Introduction to Systematic Theology.
The modern man's challenge under the influence of Kant
The modern person, educated in the ideas of Immanuel Kant (even though they might not be aware of it), particularly his distinction between phenomena (what we can observe) and noumena (things as they are in themselves), might quickly argue that talking about the God described in the Westminster Confession and catechisms seems pointless. This view suggests that such a God is beyond what we can experience and understand. In their eyes, God is essentially unknowable, and any attempt to describe Him in ways that our human minds can grasp appears futile. As alluded to, Kant made a distinction between two types of reality: the phenomenal and the noumenal.
Phenomenal reality refers to the world as we experience it through our senses. According to Kant, this is the reality that we can know and understand. It's the world of objects, events, and experiences as they appear to us.
In contrast, the noumenal world is the realm of things as they are in themselves, independent of our perceptions and experiences. Kant argued that this realm is beyond our sensory experience and, therefore, beyond our ability to truly know or understand.
According to Kantian philosophy, then, God would belong to the noumenal world — a reality that is beyond our sensory experience and comprehension. From this perspective, God is seen as unknowable, and any descriptions or attributes we assign to Him are considered beyond the grasp of our human understanding, which is limited to the phenomenal world.
Orthodox theology (that is traditional Christian theology as per the confessions and creeds) thus faces a particular challenge in understanding and defining the concept of who God is. This challenge arises when considering the philosophical views of modern thinkers like Immanuel Kant, who argue that God, as an absolute and infinite entity, falls into the realm of the noumenal and is thus beyond human comprehension. Orthodox or traditional theology, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, claims that it is possible to have theoretical knowledge of God.
In defending their ability to know and understand God (despite not having God as a direct object of knowledge), traditional theologians point to the idea of divine revelation. They argue that humans can know God because God has revealed Himself to humanity both in nature and in Scripture.
But, claiming that God has revealed Himself seems impotent against the challenge of Kant. Modern theologians, influenced by Kantian philosophy, counter this by saying that any revelation from God would necessarily have to be filtered through human understanding and perception. This means that such a revelation would be limited by the capacities and categories of the human mind.
Let's consider the example of a person reading the Bible. The Bible contains numerous descriptions and attributes of God, intended to convey His nature to humanity (e.g., God is love, just, eternal, infinite). However, the challenge posed by Kantian philosophy becomes evident in this context. When reading these Biblical descriptions of God, we interpret these attributes through our human understanding. For example, when the Bible describes God as "eternal" (Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 40:28). For the reader, "eternal" might be understood within the limits of human conception of time - an extremely long, perhaps indefinite duration, but still within the framework of time as humans perceive it. This understanding, however, may not fully capture the theological or metaphysical concept of eternity, which implies an existence beyond the temporal boundaries of past, present, and future. If God is said to be "almighty" (Genesis 17:1), the reader might conceive this in terms of the greatest humanly conceivable power, yet this still may not encapsulate the full extent of what omnipotence means in the context of an infinite God.
Furthermore, according to the modernist critique, every person reading the Bible does so with their unique background, culture, and personal experiences, influencing their understanding of the text. The way they interpret the attributes of God, such as His justice or mercy, is coloured by their personal and cultural context. This can lead to a variety of interpretations and understandings of the same text, further highlighting the limitations in comprehending the full nature of God.
This modernist challenge thus suggests that God, being transcendent, cannot be captured by human concepts and language, even when God "tries" to reveal Himself via the Bible. When the Bible reader encounters descriptions of God's nature, they are grappling with the task of understanding a being who is fundamentally beyond full human comprehension. This raises the question of how much of God's true nature is being grasped through these descriptions (if any). The result is pure scepticism when it comes to knowing God, with the knowledge of God people think they have is pure projection on their part - forming God in their image.
This Kantian/modernist problem has only become worse in recent post-modernist movements that stress epistemological subjectivity much further than in previous years.
The traditional theologians thus seem to have their task cut out to secure the knowledge of God against the Kantian critique. Can we know God who is incomprehensible and transcendent?
God is the ultimate reference point for understanding reality and not the human mind or impersonal laws
To answer the Kantian/modernist challenge we need to point out the fundamental flaw in the starting point of modernist philosophy. We need to understand that God is the ultimate reference point for understanding reality, and not man or some impersonal laws.
Saying that God is the ultimate reference point for understanding reality means that all understanding, knowledge, and interpretation of the world and existence itself should be based on, or referenced to, the nature and character of God. In this view, God is the foundational truth from which all other truths derive their meaning and context.
Understanding reality means comprehending something of the world, human existence, morality, purpose, and so on. When God is the ultimate reference point, all these aspects of reality are understood in relation to God's character, purposes, and revelation. It provides a God-centered framework for making sense of everything else.
Only the consistent Calvinist treats God as the ultimate reference point for understanding reality, and this is part of the key when we want to provide an answer to the modernist. The Christian fundamentally has a different view of God's incomprehensibility, and it is only that Christian view of incomprehensibility that can save objective knowledge of God.
The Christian incomprehensibility of God as inferred from the Creator-creature distinction states that God is incomprehensible to us not because He is "far away" or "obscure", but because He is infinitely self-actualised and rational. He knows Himself in a single act of knowing, and knows all things in creation as per His creative decree. Thus, God cannot be identified with a singular concept, or contained in a reality that is greater than Himself. Moreover, creation must be "lesser" than God in that it is God-contained (see Acts 17). God is incomprehensible to us precisely then because He is the Creator, and not in any sense a creature. And it is precisely because God is Creator, that we can know anything else at all. We now turn to flesh out how some Christians have been inconsistent in this regard, and we then flesh out how this Christian conception of God's incomprehensibility secures God's knowability instead of undermining it.
The failure of non-Reformed answers to the modernist
It is at this foundational truth that God is the ultimate reference point that Roman Catholics and Arminians already fell off the bandwagon, and as such cannot offer a viable answer to the modernist.
Cornelius Van Til argues that in granting a measure of independence to humans, non-Reformed Christians inadvertently diminish God's role as this ultimate reference point. If humans are seen as partly independent of God, then their understanding and interpretation of reality are not entirely based on, or referenced to, God. Instead, there's an implication that human understanding can exist or be valid somewhat separately from God's nature and truth.
In making humans somewhat independent of God, Van Til argues non-Reformed theology creates a situation where not only humans but also God becomes dependent on something other than Himself – in this case, the mutual relationship between God and humans, or even the broader universe. This mutual dependency contradicts the idea of God as the sole foundational truth and ultimate reference point.
Modern theologians, philosophers, and scientists, according to Van Til, base their understanding of the universe on the logical laws they perceive in their minds. They assume that these laws of logic must apply universally to reality, without providing justification for why this should be so. This approach follows the ancient philosopher Parmenides, who believed that what can be logically and intelligently stated about reality is the only truth. Essentially, this means that something is considered real only if it can fit into man's framework of logical relations.
Parmenides, an ancient Greek philosopher, is known for his argument that change and plurality are illusions, and only a static, unchanging reality is truly real. This led him to deny the reality of creation out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) and the reality of time, as both imply change and coming into being, which contradicts his philosophy. Van Til points out that within the framework of Parmenides' logic, this is a consistent stance.
In contrast to Parmenides, modern philosophy generally acknowledges the reality of time and change. This is a significant departure from the ancient view of a static, unchanging reality.
However, Van Til notes a critical issue in modern philosophy's acknowledgement of time and change. By asserting their reality, modern philosophy often implicitly treats time and change as ultimate realities. This means that time and change are seen as fundamental aspects of the universe that do not themselves require an explanation or a higher reality to account for them.
By treating time and change as ultimate, modern philosophy effectively excludes the traditional theological idea of creation, particularly creation out of nothing. This is because the concept of creation out of nothing implies a transcendent Creator who brings the universe into being, which is at odds with the idea of time and change as ultimate.
The rationalism of Parmenides, which sought to explain reality through unchanging logical principles, is supplemented in modern thought by what he calls the "irrationalism" of chance. This irrationalism acknowledges that not everything can be reduced to logical relations or explained rationally, thus recognizing the limitations of human understanding.
This modern irrationalism, with its acceptance of chance and unexplained phenomena, is a natural outgrowth of ancient rationalism. Both, in his view, fail to adequately account for a transcendent, creative God who is the ultimate reality behind the universe. In essence, both the unchanging, logical reality of Parmenides and the uncertain, chance-filled reality of modern philosophy fall short of a theistic understanding of the universe as a creation of God.
When non-Reformed theologians try to counter modern philosophy (which recognizes the limits of human logic and the inability to systemise the incomprehensible God into man's logical framework) they find that they are not equipped to address the challenges posed by this modern thought because of their own rationalistic approach.
The example of Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas influenced by Aristotle, believed that true knowledge is of universals only (e.g., we know the form or "rockness", "man" or "woman" as forever static concepts, and we know the concepts comprehensively). This approach led Aquinas to a specific stance on knowing God: he asserted that we cannot know what God is, only what God is not. This method of understanding God is known as "via negativa" or the negative way, which defines God by negation - stating what God is not, rather than what God is. The reason for this is intuitive, as we cannot know God comprehensively in a positive way (in the same sense that we know a rock, or any other object in creation.).
Van Til thus concludes that it's as difficult to reach an understanding of the Christian God through Aristotle’s logic as it is through Kant's. Both philosophical systems, in their own ways, fail to adequately address the transcendent nature of the Christian God. Aristotle’s logic, focusing on universals and negation, and Kant’s emphasis on the limits of human understanding, do not allow for a full grasp of a God who is beyond human comprehension yet intimately involved in the world.
Despite Aquinas' rationalist approach to human reason, Van Til argues that Aquinas' stance on divine revelation takes an almost opposite, irrationalist turn. If human reason, as per Aquinas' view, cannot positively ascertain anything about the nature of God (only what God is not), then revelation becomes a kind of irrational assertion. This revelation, revealing positive knowledge about God, cannot be integrated with the rational system of thought Aquinas adheres to.
This leads to a problematic disconnect between reason and revelation in Aquinas' theology. Reason, operating under a rationalist framework, cannot grasp the positive aspects of divine revelation about God’s nature. Consequently, revelation seems to stand outside the realm of rational understanding, appearing almost irrational or disconnected from human reason (here we start seeing elements of Kant's noumenal/phenomenal distinction appearing in Aquinas).
Van Til suggests that this approach by Aquinas and similar theologians aligns more with non-Christian philosophical thought, which often oscillates between rationalism and irrationalism. In non-Christian thought, rationalism tries to explain everything logically, while irrationalism accepts the inexplicable or the illogical. Aquinas' method, in Van Til's view, inadvertently falls into this pattern by separating the rational understanding of God’s existence from the seemingly irrational understanding of God's nature through revelation.
The result, according to Van Til, is that Aquinas' theology struggles to meet its own claim of knowing an absolute God. While reason affirms God's existence, the inability of reason to grasp God's nature, coupled with a view of revelation that seems disconnected from rational thought leads to sceptisim and subjectivism, much like modernist claims.
Reformed theology, the consistent orthodox answer
Reformed theology fully embraces the depth and breadth of the doctrine of revelation, rooted in an uncompromising adherence to its doctrine of God, as articulated in its confessions and catechisms. This approach inherently involves taking the doctrine of creation seriously, which has significant implications for understanding the nature and role of the human mind concerning God’s revelation. In Reformed theology, God is uncompromisingly taken as the ultimate reference point in predication. All facts are based on God's counsel.
In Reformed theology, the revelation of God is not seen as something that comes to an independent, self-sufficient human mind. Instead, it is viewed as integral to the very functioning and purpose of the mind. This perspective maintains that the original creative revelational character of the human mind can only be upheld under the assumption that it has always operated in tandem with God’s supernatural revelation: According to the Genesis account, God walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, indicating a direct, personal, and supernatural form of communication and interaction with humans from the very beginning of creation. This narrative, Van Til argues, shows that human reason was always meant to function in a self-conscious relationship with God's supernatural revelation. In other words, the proper functioning of human reason is inherently tied to, and dependent on, this direct revelatory relationship with God (this goes directly against the Kantian understanding and non-Reformed understandings of man).
In this Reformed framework, everything about and within humans, including their reason and logic, is designed to reveal and reflect God. Every fact or aspect of existence is understood as having its place and meaning within God’s overarching plan for history. This perspective significantly challenges the view, like that of Parmenides, where human reason is seen as capable of independently legislating or determining the nature of reality through logic alone.
Van Til emphasizes that the human mind, with its capacity for logic, was not intended to define reality by itself but to order and understand the facts of reality in a way that aligns with God's revelation. This means recognizing and subordinating human understanding to the supernatural and positive revelation provided by God. Human logic, therefore, is not an autonomous tool for defining truth but a gift meant to help humans understand and organize reality following God’s revealed will and purpose.
Knowledge of the incomprehensible God is therefore not unattainable but indispensable for all other knowledge. Knowledge of any facts involves relating to God's comprehensive plan for creation, and thinking in self-conscious submission to God's revealed Word. Van Til stresses that in Reformed theology, not only is it possible for humans to be certain of knowing God, but it is also impossible for them not to know God.
This is a significant departure from other theological positions (and modernism) which concede to scepticism or uncertainty about God's existence and knowability. The real predicament for humans, as Van Til sees it, is not uncertainty about God's existence or whether humans can know God. Instead, the issue is that people inherently know God exists and will face His judgment, but they often try to suppress or cast doubt upon this knowledge. This is in line with the biblical narrative of the rich man in torment, where the issue is not ignorance of God but a willful ignoring or rejection of His revelation. Thus, Reformed theology takes a distinctive approach in responding to modernist perspectives, differing notably from the Roman Catholic approach. Instead of attempting to devise a method by which finite, self-governing humans can independently discover God, Reformed theology fundamentally questions the premise of human autonomy right from the outset. It asserts that there is no autonomous, univocal (comprehensive and atomic) knowledge of anything. All knowledge, according to Reformed thought, is analogical, meaning it is understood in relation to and as a reflection of God's comprehensive system for reality and thus God himself. Thus, comprehensive knowledge can never be attained with regard to any fact, for to comprehend any fact fully, would be to understand Creation as God, which is only possible if you are God.
The Reformed concept of God’s incomprehensibility is thus markedly different from other interpretations. In Reformed theology, the incomprehensibility of God is rooted in the belief that God, as the Creator, is beyond full human understanding, yet He is known through His revelation (which only He fully comprehends) – everything in existence is seen as a form of this revelation, and all knowledge stems from it. This contrasts with the non-Christian view of incomprehensibility, where God is considered incomprehensible primarily because He lies beyond the reach of human reason when it is exercised independently or autonomously.
Knowledge of God is then understood as being analogical rather than univocal. This means that while humans cannot fully comprehend the Triune God as depicted in the Bible (or even His creation), they can still have a true and meaningful understanding of Him, based on His revelation. The analogical nature of this knowledge implies that human understanding reflects, in a finite and limited way, the truths about God and His creation. It’s a form of knowledge that mirrors or corresponds to the greater reality of God’s own understanding, without claiming to encompass it fully.
This concept has broader implications for all forms of knowledge. If knowledge were not analogical then true knowledge of any fact (let alone comprehensive knowledge) would be impossible. It is precisely because human knowledge is a finite reflection of God’s infinite understanding that people can know anything at all. Without this foundational principle that God is the Creator, and that He exhaustively knows and controls all facts in creation and orders them, knowledge in any form would lose its coherence and reliability (delving everything into pure chaos, subjectivism and scepticism). In essence, all knowledge, to be considered valid and true within this framework, must be seen as a smaller, human-scale echo of the divine knowledge that comes from God as the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists.
We now turn to consider how we can be sure that our analogical knowledge remains true and objective, although not comprehensive. We will follow Brant Bosserman's analogical reasoning as per "The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox". In many ways, Bosserman expands on chapter 13 of Van Til's "Introduction of Systematic Theology", and answers some lingering questions we might have. Unlike Van Til, Bosserman shows how the preceding explanations are unique to Christianity, and are fundamentally grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity.
The attributes of God and perichoresis
First, we consider the doctrine of creation. As previously discussed, the Christian doctrine of God as incomprehensible is involved in His status as the self-sufficient and fully self-actualised creator of all that is not God.
The doctrine of creation ex nihilo is thus a fundamental concept in Christian theology which posits that God created the universe out of nothing (ex nihilo is Latin for "from nothing"). This doctrine asserts that before God’s act of creation, there was no pre-existing matter or substance. Instead, God brought the universe and all its contents into existence solely by His will and command.
This concept is crucial in distinguishing the Christian understanding of God as the ultimate, uncaused Creator, separate from His creation, and not merely a shaper or organizer of pre-existing chaos or materials. It emphasizes God's absolute power and sovereignty, underscoring the idea that everything in the universe owes its existence entirely to God. The doctrine also carries significant philosophical and theological implications, particularly concerning the nature of God as transcendent and omnipotent, and the relationship between God and His creation. It stands in contrast to other ancient creation narratives that often involve the gods working with or organizing pre-existing chaotic matter. Creation ex nihilo thus reinforces the distinctiveness of the Christian understanding of God and the universe.
The question of how a self-sufficient, unchanging, and absolute God can create without Himself changing presents a challenging theological dilemma. If the act of creation required God to redirect or alter His power, it would suggest that God experienced a change, which contradicts the traditional Christian understanding of God as immutable. if God changed at the point of creation, it immediately concedes that there exists a more fundamental impersonal reality that encapsulates God (as for God to change from X to Y, it means that He changed with respect to something other than Himself). This leads to a perplexing crossroads: either one must consider creation as divine and uncreated, meaning it is a part of the eternal nature of God (which blurs the line between Creator and creation), or one might view the Christian doctrine of God and creation as logically inconsistent.
Brant Bosserman writes,
Since change is a characteristic of time-bound realities, [and if God changed during creation] God must in fact be a finite member of the temporal universe. Stated in different terms, God’s decision to create must have been motivated by some end that He has yet to realize. Yet, if God fails to realize any perfection from eternity then He must be finite and guided by ideals that exist outside of Himself.
Bosserman, B. A.. The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: An Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius Van Til (p. 198). Pickwick Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
The crux of this issue then lies in reconciling God's unchanging nature with the dynamic act of creation, without compromising the distinct identities of God and His creation, as traditionally upheld in Christian theology.
In answering this, Bosserman builds on what He called "Trinitarian logic", which is essentially logical reasoning that is subservient to the doctrines God has revealed in Scripture, allowing various seemingly paradoxical doctrines to inform and enhance each other, thereby vindicating them.
Bosserman starts by offering a vindication of divine Simplicity and the multiplicity of divine attributes. Both are key doctrines in Christian theology.
Divine simplicity is a theological concept that refers to the idea that God's nature is not composed of different parts but is entirely unified and indivisible. In divine simplicity, each attribute of God such as love, justice, and wisdom is not separate from His essence but is fully integrated into who God is. This means that God's attributes do not exist independently of each other or His essence. Essentially, God is His attributes; there is no difference between God and His qualities. Divine simplicity (again) follows from the Creator-creature distinction. If God were composed of different parts, God would at once be a finite member of a greater impersonal reality (as God would be defined by concepts/things that are not God and greater than Himself). God is love. Love is not an abstract concept/quality which God happens to embody.
Furthermore, Bosserman draws on the doctrine of perichoresis (circuminsession), which is a term used to describe the mutual indwelling and interrelationship of the three persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It denotes a form of unity and intimacy that is unique to the Trinity, where each person fully participates in the life of the others without losing their distinctiveness. Kevin DeYoung writes that perichoresis is a recurring theme from the lips of Jesus that the Father dwells in the Son, that "I am in the Father and the Father is in me". All that Jesus asks in the high priestly prayer is rooted in the reality that the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son. The apostle Paul, likewise, testifies that in the incarnate Son "...all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell".
We usually understand these verses to be about Christ’s deity. And rightly so. But they also speak to the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, and yet, we must not think of the three persons as "three faces in a yearbook". The Father indwells the Son; the Son indwells the Spirit; the Spirit indwells the Father (and you could reverse the order in each pair). This means that we cannot "look" at one person in the Trinity without at once seeing all three persons. The one God is the Trinity.
Thus, the Son and the Father dwell in the Spirit, and so the relation between the Son and the Father is not mediated by impersonal laws - but by the person of the Spirit. In the same way, the Spirit dwells in the Father and the Son, and this circuminsession continues without end in what we can visualise as "steps". There is no impersonalism or fundamental reality that the Trinity needs to function. The Trinity is self-sufficient.
Now, each of these steps of circuminsession aren't temporal "moments" in the life of God (as God is not temporal), nor are they units of additions to His being, or expansions in a space (as this would again contradict the Creator-creature distinction, making God subject to an impersonal reality). This means that if these "steps" in the divine life aren't moments, additions or expansions (or even additional persons), it means that they must be qualitatively different attributes of God that define the Trinitarian life.
A few conclusions can be drawn from the above:
God possesses an infinite amount of attributes, as there is no limit to the circuminsession of the Trinitarian God who is self-contained.
God is infinitely self-comprehensive as each person mediates between the other two without end.
Each divine attribute defines all the others. Because they are "steps" of circuminsession, each attribute contains all other others as well. God's faithfulness must define wisdom, righteousness, beauty etc., in the sense that they are expressions of God's faithfulness. And, if we go in the reverse direction, each attribute receives an external definition without an end. God's faithfulness is wise, righteous, beautiful etc.
Thus, God is "simple" not in the Thomistic sense that His nature repels the idea of distinction (which is already in conflict with the Trinity). God is thus simple in the sense that His nature is identical with an infinitude of mutually exhaustive attributes that arise from an infinite circuminsession of the three divine persons who are the One God. Thus, the divine life can be characterized as entirely actualised, never dull.
Now, let's consider that the combination of multiple divine attributes and a simple (undivided) nature is distinctly characteristic of the Triune God as described in the Bible. This specific Trinitarian logic, which upholds both God's simplicity (due to the Creator-creature distinction) and the presence of multiple attributes, cannot be applied to unitarian conceptions of God. In unitarian frameworks, where God is seen as a singular entity without the complexity of the Trinity, there are inherent limitations. Such unitarian gods might either be subjected to an impersonal reality, making them ultimately unknowable, or they risk being as conceptually limited as Aristotle's "unmoved mover" - a fundamentally distant and inactive deity. This contrast highlights the unique theological richness and coherence found in the Trinitarian understanding of God, which accommodates both the unity and diversity within the divine nature.
For instance, consider Allah in Islamic theology, who is attributed with numerous qualities. However, a theological dilemma arises in understanding how these attributes are expressed. One perspective might suggest that Allah's attributes cannot be fully manifested without His activity outside of His divine nature, implying a form of dependence on creation. Alternatively, these attributes could be viewed as existing potentially within Allah, awaiting expression through interaction with the created world. Both scenarios present a challenge: if Allah's attributes are not fully actualized independently of creation, it raises questions about the completeness and self-sufficiency of Allah's nature. This leads to a theological tension within Islam’s concept of God, where the self-contained authority and the fullness of God's nature are seemingly at odds with how His attributes are understood to be expressed or actualized. This situation illustrates the complexities and nuances involved in theological discussions about the nature of God and His attributes, particularly in non-Trinitarian frameworks.
Creation ex nihilo is the unique act of the Trinitarian God
Informed by our understanding of divine perichoresis and its role in the Trinity, we can deduce that God, while unchanging (immutable), embodies the essence of spontaneity in His divine interactions. This is because, within the Trinity, each divine attribute is not just an expression but an expansion of the others, each bringing a new dimension to the divine nature.
Given God’s immutable and simultaneously dynamic nature, the act of creation becomes a unique expression of His divinity: For God to bring forth something beyond His infinite self (or more than Himself), He must create something that is comparatively "less than" His complete nature.
In other words, the creation is "less than" not in value, but in its capacity to fully encapsulate the entirety of God’s infinite nature. Therefore, to create something qualitatively different from Himself, such as the finite world, God manifests something that is quantitatively less extensive than His infinite being. This conceptual framework allows us to understand creation as a distinct act of God, one that reflects His nature but does not contain or equal His infinite essence. In this way, the Trinitarian God creates something qualitatively different than Himself without at the same time changing.
As a product of God's creative act, the universe embodies the divine characteristic of being sustained and encompassed by God ("in Him we life and move and have our being"), yet it does not encapsulate or contain God within itself.
This leads to an intriguing perspective: finitude, or the state of being finite, isn't so much the opposite of infinitude (being infinite) as it is a reflection or analogue of it. Consequently, every aspect or element of creation simultaneously mirrors and diverges from God's nature. It is akin to God in that it exists within the scope of God’s sustaining power, but it is unlike God in that it does not possess the capacity to contain or define the fullness of God. This duality in creation's relationship to God – being both reflective of and distinct from God – essentially encapsulates the core idea of the Creator-creature distinction. This distinction underscores that while creation has its origin and sustenance in God, it remains fundamentally separate from the divine essence, thus maintaining the unique identities of both the Creator and the created.
The Bible then speaks of God the Father as the primary mover in creation, who created through the Son (John 1, Hebrews 1). Thus, God's relationship to creation is not governed by some impersonal principles, but by a second person of the Trinity, the Son. Important then for our purposes is that the Son defines and comprehends the inter-Trinitarian communion and, by extension, the creation itself. Colossians 1:16-17 states that "For by him [the Son] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Furthermore, John 1:18 states that "No one has ever seen God [The Father]; the only God [The Son], who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.", and John 14:9 states that "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?". From the Bible, we thus gather the concept that the Son reveals the Father.
The Son, in comprehending and encompassing both the Father and the Spirit (perichoresis) and creation, imparts a revelatory aspect to creation. Creation then becomes a reflection, an analogical disclosure of the inter-Trinitarian communion. The Son, akin to an earthly son who reflects his father's likeness and actions, serves as the revelator of the Father. Through the Son's creative and sustaining acts, the Father's nature and attributes are mirrored. In this way, the creation is the expression of the Son's intellect, and such reveals the Father. The relation between the Father and creation is thus finally located in the Son, and not some abstract principle like logic, space, time, "being-in-general" etc.
Noteably then, a unitarion deity cannot offer this view of creation. There are no mutually indwelling persons who exhaustively comprehend each other. The unitarian God is not in any way exhaustively self-comprehensive and relational as the Trinitarian deity. As such, if the unitarian God creates, it is unclear how this God can be knowable through his creation, moreover, unitarian theology is beset with the basic problem that it must locate the relationship between God and creation in the context of an impersonal sphere (e.g., logic, space, time, "being-in-general") and we're at once back to impersonal ultimate reality and ultimate mystery.
Objective analogical knowledge
The above should give us the ammunition needed to vindicate objective analogical knowledge of God. According to the Bible, God is personally present and revealed in His creation, but neither limited nor contained by it (this is in line with the analogical reason in the prior sections).
As the Creator of all things, God is reflected in every aspect of creation (as seen in Psalms 19:1–4, Acts 14:17, Romans 1:18ff.). This implies that God transcends specific locations in space and time – He does not exist as a physical entity confined to a particular place, nor can He be fully encapsulated by any singular mental or linguistic concept. Instead, all elements of creation serve as analogical expressions of God’s nature (this follows from our previous discussion).
The universe in its entirety can be metaphorically compared to clothing, a house, or furniture for God (as in Psalms 104:2 and Isaiah 66:1) – it is a context through which His presence is manifest, not because He is contained within it, but because He completely envelops and sustains it (as described in 1 Kings 8:27 and Hebrews 1:3).
Thus, we can secure objective and true analogical knowledge of God precisely because of the Creator-creature distinction (and God's incomprehensibility), and not despite it. This is the crucial point to grasp, as it is precisely the fact that God is the Creator, fully actualised in his infinitude that makes Him incomprehensible, and it is this incomprehensibility (not non-Christian incomprehensibility) that secures objective and true analogical knowledge. The universe, being a product of God’s will and character, always reflects aspects of Him. Therefore, when we understand something about God through the lens of creation, we are engaging with a reality that genuinely reflects something of His nature, even if it does not reflect it exhaustively.
Furthermore, any analogies or anthropomorphic language the Bible uses to describe God are not subjective guesses but are informed and guided by the objective reality of God’s self-disclosure.
Our understanding, while not exhaustive, can still provide authentic and objective knowledge. This is because our entire context, encompassing both the natural world and our minds, is a manifestation of God’s revelation. Consequently, the knowledge we acquire, albeit limited by our finite nature, is still a truthful reflection of a greater reality. As humans existing within the confines of nature, we cannot attain a complete comprehension of anything, a capacity reserved only for God, who encompasses and transcends nature. Nevertheless, our limited understanding is analogous to God's infinite knowledge. It remains both objective and true, not because it is all-encompassing, but because it stems from, and is a part of, the broader reality of God’s revelatory work in creation.
The analogy of a newborn baby beautifully illustrates something of the nature of our knowledge compared to God’s. When a baby is born, it possesses no conceptual understanding of the world – ideas like time, distance, or even the concepts of mother and father are beyond its grasp. Yet, this lack of comprehensive understanding does not mean that what the baby knows is false. The baby, in its limited capacity, knows fundamental truths (even though the baby can't even verbalise or even systemise it): comfort in the arms of a parent, the satisfaction of being fed, the warmth of being held. Even without understanding the concepts of love or family, the baby experiences these realities in a basic, non-comprehensive, but true form.
As the baby grows, its understanding deepens and expands. It begins to recognize faces, understand affection, and discern relationships. Each stage of the baby's development brings a more nuanced comprehension, but at every stage, what the baby knows is true, despite not being comprehensive. The baby's knowledge is real and valid, even though it is not complete.
Likewise, in our quest for knowledge, especially knowledge about God and the universe, we grow and expand our understanding bit by bit. Like the baby, our early stages of understanding might be basic and simple, but they are true within the scope of our experience and capacity. As we grow intellectually, spiritually, and experientially, our comprehension becomes more refined and sophisticated, but it never becomes all-encompassing like God’s knowledge. God, who is the Creator and Sustainer of all, possesses a comprehensive and complete understanding of the universe in a way that is infinitely beyond our capacity.
Therefore, while we can grow in knowledge and our understanding can become increasingly accurate and detailed, we, as finite beings, will never attain the infinite, all-encompassing knowledge that God possesses. Our knowledge journey is a process of continuous growth and learning, where what we know at each stage is true, but always a finite reflection of God’s understanding.
Discussion
Engage in theological discourse.