'Can God be known? Yes, God can be known, since it is actually true and real that He is knowable through Himself. When that happens, man becomes free, he becomes empowered, he becomes capable - a mystery to himself - of knowing God. Knowledge of God is a knowledge completely effected and determined from the side of its object, from the side of God. But for that very reason it is genuine knowledge; for that very reason it is in the deepest sense free knowledge. Of course it remains a relative knowledge, a knowledge imprisoned within the limits of the creaturely. Of course it is especially true here that we are carrying heavenly treasures in earthen vessels. Our concepts are not adequate to grasp this treasure. Precisely where this genuine knowledge of God takes place it will also be clear that there is no occasion for any pride. There always remains powerless man, creaturely reason within its limitations. But in this area of the creaturely, of the inadequate, it has pleased God to reveal Himself. And since man is foolish in this respect too. He will be wise; since man is petty, He will be great; since man is inadequate, God is adequate. 'Let my grace suffice for thee. For my strength is mighty in the weak' holds good also for the question of knowledge.'
(p.24, Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline)
I really, really love that quote. The only think I don't quite understand is quite what Barth means by it being 'free' knowledge.
The challenge is to ask how I am rejecting that revelation and the promise of knowing God it contains, and choosing to 'know' God in other ways?
"Our concepts are not adequate to grasp this treasure"
ReplyDeleteThat would be a good example of a self-excepting logical fallacy
Tom Price commenting on my blog... blimey. No sloppy statements allowed anymore.
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, give me an evening or two to think about that one. I want to chew it over.
You probably don't want blimey, really either :)
ReplyDeleteTry googling this 'define: blimey'
Glad to be interacting!
Barth is important, but he was reacting to something and it wasn't just the bible. The modern scientific challenge was looming and he also wanted to counter attack theological liberalism.
Look up Francis Schaeffer on Karl Barth. Very interesting interactions.
See this...
"In 1958 Schaeffer corresponded with Stacey Woods, the late General Secretary of Inter-Varsity and then of IFES. He warned him about the growing influence of Barth's thinking in evangelical circles. That influence has since not diminished, but grown. The battle is no longer over details of theology, but over the God of the Bible in contrast to "my personal god", my relationship to Jesus, my Buddha, my mantra, my psychologist, and my self. Modern spirituality is separated from reason and facts. Psychological and emotional concerns have replaced moral and intellectual ones. The ride itself is more important than the goal. What Eastern religions always presented as the universal way to nirvana is now also presented as a way with Jesus to personal fulfillment."
from http://www.francisschaefferfoundation.com/dancing.html
Hehe,
ReplyDeleteThe origin of blimey is quite ironic given the topic.
I am still thinking, but you have widened what my little mind has to cope with. I will look up Schaeffer (who I confess I've never read - I know that'll upset you) and listen to Jerram Barrs on Schaeffer's 'New Modernism' address tonight.