In his The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God John Frame attempts a kind of epistemology. He calls it 'perspectivalism'. Rightly, Frame shows that epistemology has a relation to ethics - 'knowing is not autonomous; it is subject to God's authority, as is all of human life. This procedure also reminds us that knowing, thinking, theorizing and so forth are indeed parts of human life as a whole.'
The three different objects of knowledge are God, the world and our selves. Knowledge of god is 'normative'. Knowledge of self is 'existential'. Knowledge of the world is 'situational'. These objects are so closely related to each other that that knowing them is all the same process but seen from different perspectives. So: knowing oneself better is at the same time a gain in knowledge of God and the world. In a counselling situation, says Frame, the Christian can seek to grasp 3 things: 1) what was the situation? 2) how are you responding to it? 3) what does Scripture say? These questions are mutually interdependent.
Frame complains that in non-Christian ethics, the three factors seem to get seperated or lost. 'Scripture, however, tells us that God is in control, is the authority, and is present; therefore the situation, law and person are part of an organic whole, together revealing God's Lordship.' (p. 74). Likewise in epistemology, the normative perspective focuses on God's authority as expressed through His law - a self-attesting and ultimate authority. The situational perspective focuses on the law as revaled in Scripture and in creation. The existential perspective focuses on the law as revealed in man as God's image. 'We get to know the law better as we come to know ourselves better.'
Perspectivalism is rich because it shows how epistemology has different modes. It allows for a total knowledge without granting it to fallen human beings to know it. It shows that all knowledge is in some sense knowledge of the divine - or it is interrelated with knowledge of God. In knowing anything (as Frame says) we know God.
But Frame's characterisation of the knowledge of God as 'law' is, in my view, theologically and biblically flawed - and gravely so. It fails to start from the gospel of Jesus Christ. It threatens to make the OT universal but can only do so in an arbitrary fashion by dividing the law into parts. I am happy with the idea of the 'normative' perspective if its chief characterisation is the grace of God in Christ. Knowing God in his control, authority and presence must surely be condition by the gospel - his control and authority and presence are ultimately and decisively revealed and thus known in Christ crucified and risen, yes?
8 comments:
I would agree that God's graciousness should indeed be the chief characterisation of any normative knowledge of God, but we can only achieve such a perspective currently from our fallen condition, and thus I would suggest that knowledge of the Law is the first step towards knowledge of God's graciousness.
Also, the 'control' God manifests in Jesus Christ is largely hidden from our 'sight' at present, is it not? it is 'visible' only to the eyes of faith until the Last Day comes.
I've not read Frame's knowledge of God yet - it's on my reading list - but I have his Doctrine of the Christian Life, which is very stimulating.
Spot on Michael. Thumbs up.
Not having read all of Frame I am hesitant in critiquing him. Yet with his use of "Law" as the knowledge of God it would seem that he is only talking about a "Intellectual" knowing about God.
Whereas it would seem that through the outpouring of the Spirit we come to know God in both a non intellectual and intellectual manner.
Craig - no, that would be a complete misrepresentation of Frame.
Thanks Michael for clearing that up. It's why I was hesitant as I wasn't really sure what it was you were saying about his understanding of law.
Michael, can you clear something up for me? When you say "Frame's characterisation of the knowledge of God as 'law' is, in my opinion, theologically and biblically flawed - and gravely so" are you saying that it's unhelpful or are you saying it's heresy?
Not heresy. But the word 'unhelpful' is so insipid...
I think it badly distorts the picture he is trying to describe, but Frame and I are essentially on the same team.
I've been listening to Frame's lectures on ethics and epistemology on iTunes U. Great stuff, and free.
Most important for me is his emphasis on Romans 1:18ff, and its implications for where we 'start' our thinking. My conclusions are these: everyone 'knows' God is there, and everyone knows His eternal power and divine nature (this is not a saving knowledge that all people have, but all people have sufficient knowledge of God to be without excuse for failure to worship Him). Also, everyone 'has' enough ethical knowledge to live a complete and perfect human life. While this ethical knowledge is possessed by all, rendering all without excuse ethically, this ethical knowledge can not be accessed fully or perfectly. Adam and Eve could access it perfectly, and live it perfectly, before the fall, but for the rest of us, this inward knowledge is so clouded by our sin that we need special revelation to clarify that inward ethical knowledge.
Further, everyone has knowledge of their deserving judgment. We suppress this too by our sin, but the knowledge is there for every human on the planet. All of this can be derived from Romans 1:18ff. Thus these things (the fact of God's existence, the content of our ethical requirements, and the justice of our death) should not be argued for, but assumed and declared without argumentation. These things are primary in an epistemological sense, prior to the gospel, since all people know them already. The history of God's gracious works including the gospel is epistemologically subsequent to knowledge of God, ethics and judgment. If we argue for them, we imply people don't already know them, and we imply that people have an excuse before God. This undermines the gospel message. This is because the history of God's gracious works is not inwardly known by all people, but must be preached.
Post a Comment