A Thomish Epistemic Cartography of the Question “Can We Know God?”

Modern Theology Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.1111/moth.12943
T. A. Van Wart
{"title":"A Thomish Epistemic Cartography of the Question “Can We Know God?”","authors":"T. A. Van Wart","doi":"10.1111/moth.12943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following article maps the various ways in which the expressions “knowledge” and “to know” are diversely used with reference to the Triune Lord of historic Christian orthodoxy. The reason for this epistemic cartography of Christian grammar stems from a desire to help dissolve and bring quiet to the decades of confusion that have arisen in theological conversation as a function of the failure to specify just what one means by the relevant terms (chiefly, “knowledge” and “to know”) in questions like “Can we know God?” I therefore list the various ways “to know” and “knowledge” are traditionally used to give shape both to the differing versions of the question “Can we know God?” and to their respective answers as displayed within the grammar of the Christian faith. Making use of St. Thomas Aquinas's contributions when helpful, the resulting analysis yields that, though we can truly say it is possible for us to know or have knowledge of God that is of the unitive, conventional, demonstrative, and nominative sort (i.e., the form of the question under those intentional conditions leads to an affirmative answer), we can in no way meaningfully assert the same of definitional knowledge with respect to God. Through God's self‐revelation in/as Jesus Christ, however, I argue that an infallible and superlative expansion of the possibilities for our unitive, conventional, demonstrative, and nominative knowledge of God is on offer.","PeriodicalId":507104,"journal":{"name":"Modern Theology","volume":"60 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12943","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The following article maps the various ways in which the expressions “knowledge” and “to know” are diversely used with reference to the Triune Lord of historic Christian orthodoxy. The reason for this epistemic cartography of Christian grammar stems from a desire to help dissolve and bring quiet to the decades of confusion that have arisen in theological conversation as a function of the failure to specify just what one means by the relevant terms (chiefly, “knowledge” and “to know”) in questions like “Can we know God?” I therefore list the various ways “to know” and “knowledge” are traditionally used to give shape both to the differing versions of the question “Can we know God?” and to their respective answers as displayed within the grammar of the Christian faith. Making use of St. Thomas Aquinas's contributions when helpful, the resulting analysis yields that, though we can truly say it is possible for us to know or have knowledge of God that is of the unitive, conventional, demonstrative, and nominative sort (i.e., the form of the question under those intentional conditions leads to an affirmative answer), we can in no way meaningfully assert the same of definitional knowledge with respect to God. Through God's self‐revelation in/as Jesus Christ, however, I argue that an infallible and superlative expansion of the possibilities for our unitive, conventional, demonstrative, and nominative knowledge of God is on offer.
关于 "我们能认识上帝吗?"问题的托马斯认识论图谱
下面这篇文章描绘了 "知识 "和 "认识 "这两个词在涉及基督教正统历史上的三位一体之主时的各种不同用法。之所以绘制这幅基督教语法的认识论地图,是因为我们希望帮助化解和平息几十年来神学对话中出现的混乱,这些混乱是由于在诸如 "我们能认识上帝吗?"这样的问题中,人们未能明确说明相关术语(主要是 "知识 "和 "认识")的含义。因此,我列举了 "认识 "和 "知识 "在传统上的各种用法,以说明 "我们能认识上帝吗?"这一问题的不同版本,以及它们在基督教信仰语法中所展示的各自答案。利用圣托马斯-阿奎那(St. Thomas Aquinas)的有益贡献,分析结果表明,虽然我们确实可以说我们有可能认识或拥有关于上帝的统一的、传统的、示范性的和命名性的知识(即在这些意向条件下问题的形式导致肯定的答案),但我们绝不能有意义地断言关于上帝的定义性知识也是如此。然而,通过上帝在耶稣基督里的自我启示,我认为我们对上帝的统一性、传统性、示意性和称谓性知识的可能性有了无懈可击的、超级的扩展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信