Tracing Knowledge of God: Thinking from a Center in God

Read Chapter Six (6) “Language for God: Considering the Difference between ‘Disclosure Models’ and ‘Picturing Models’ in Knowing the trinity with T. F. Torrance,” pp. 209-61.

I think you will really like this chapter as it tackles the question of whether we need to change language for God for women to have equality with men in the church and elsewhere. I would ask you to write a 4–5-page essay (typed and double-spaced) discussing the implications of tracing knowledge of God back to the triune God as known through the revelation of God in Christ and the Holy Spirit and tracing knowledge of God back to ourselves. What real difference does it make to “think from a center in God” as Torrance continually insists we must, rather than thinking from a center in ourselves?

Disclosure models of God are those that allow for the fact that God makes himself known to us through our concepts. Picturing models are those that claim our knowledge of God comes from some aspect of human culture which means that ultimately our knowledge of God really comes from us and not from God alone.

In the essay you should consider the following questions. Obviously, you don’t have to treat all of them. These are meant to be helpful to you as your frame your essays. The more material you can discuss the better. But remember, when you make statements, you have to back them up with appropriate quotations from the theologians you are discussing, and you have to support your views with a proper understanding of the issues under consideration. Also, remember that you cannot just copy from the book. That would be a form of plagiarism. You can quote from the book of course to make your points. But then you must indicate the page numbers and use quotation marks where appropriate.

1) What does Torrance mean by “intuitive knowledge”?
2) How does Torrance focus on imageless thinking about God in a way that allows what he calls the “Hebraic” way of thinking to keep us from projecting our cultural images onto Jesus instead of allowing Jesus himself to disclose God to us within his own Jewish context? He says we should not schematize the Old and New Testament picture of Jesus “to our own culture, a western culture, a black culture, an oriental culture” and that we should “enlist the aid of the Jews in helping us to interpret Jesus as he is actually presented to us in the Jewish Scripture” (213-14, n.14). Why does he say these things and with what implications?
3) Why does Torrance claim that we cannot know God as Father and Son “on the analogy of human fatherhood”? (213) How does this view contrast with the views of Elizabeth Johnson and Catherine LaCugna? Pay specific attention to how Johnson understands analogy and to her view of conversion. Also, pay attention to her starting point for understanding God and salvation and to her conclusion that we have no literal knowledge of God. Make sure you explain how and why her view of analogy and conversion might lead Torrance to claim she mistakenly uses a “picturing model” to understand God and thus she completely misunderstands who God is and who we are. Explain the implications of her views for understanding what human freedom in Christ actually means. Then you should do the same with the views of LaCugna. Does LaCugna really allow God to be God? Or does she think we can be defined God according to our own agenda and from ourselves?
4) Make sure you explain exactly how and with what implications LaCugna misunderstands the traditional meaning of the doctrine of perichoresis. Also, make sure you explain the problems with LaCugna’s view that “the life of God does not belong to God alone;” that “divine self-sufficiency” is a “philosophical myth;” and that “to be God is to be Creator” (237, n. 84).
5) Why does Torrance claim that the “sex-content” of our images of God as Father and Son cannot be projected by us back into God so that while the Hebrew language can use dramatic images of “feminine feelings” when referring to God nonetheless “the relation between those images and God is an imageless relation”? Therefore, he insists that gender can never be read back into God.
6) If gender cannot be read back into God and if God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, then the sin of patriarchalism has already been overcome for us by God in Christ. That is where the equality of women and men is re-established by the overcoming of sin for the human race in the life of Jesus himself as he lived a life of perfect obedience to God in our place and for us.
7) Why do I claim that a) it is unnecessary and impossible for us to change the name of God from Father, Son and Holy Spirit to some other name? b) What exactly happens in the thinking of those who believe that we can and must change the name of God for social, political, or religious reasons? Make sure you give specific examples from the text to support what you say about this.
8) What are some of the problems with the views of Paul Fiddes?
9) What are some of the problems with the views of Sallie McFague?
10) What precisely are the problems embedded in the views of Rosemary Radford Ruether?
11) Why does Karl Barth claim that “it is not true that in some hidden depth of his essence God is something other than Father and Son. It is not true that these names are just freely chosen and int the last analysis meaningless symbols, symbols whose original and proper non-symbolical content lies in that creaturely reality”? (235).

Sample Answer

Introduction

In the quest for understanding the nature of God and our knowledge of Him, theologians have proposed different models and perspectives. One of the key debates revolves around the concept of language for God and whether it needs to be changed to address issues of equality, particularly with regard to women in the church and society. T.F. Torrance, in his work “Language for God: Considering the Difference between ‘Disclosure Models’ and ‘Picturing Models’ in Knowing the trinity with T. F. Torrance,” explores the implications of tracing knowledge of God back to the triune God as known through the revelation of God in Christ and the Holy Spirit, as opposed to tracing knowledge back to ourselves. This essay will delve into Torrance’s concept of “intuitive knowledge,” his emphasis on imageless thinking about God, and his critique of theologians such as Elizabeth Johnson, Catherine LaCugna, Paul Fiddes, Sallie McFague, and Rosemary Radford Ruether. Additionally, it will examine Karl Barth’s view on the names of God.

1) Torrance’s Concept of “Intuitive Knowledge”

Torrance introduces the concept of “intuitive knowledge” as a way of understanding our knowledge of God. According to Torrance, intuitive knowledge refers to a direct apprehension of God’s self-revelation in Christ and the Holy Spirit. It involves a deep communion with God that surpasses intellectual comprehension alone. Torrance argues that this intuitive knowledge should be the foundation for our understanding of God, rather than relying solely on human concepts or cultural images.

2) Imageless Thinking and the Jewish Context

Torrance emphasizes the importance of imageless thinking about God, particularly when it comes to understanding Jesus within his Jewish context. He cautions against projecting our own cultural images onto Jesus and instead advocates for enlisting the aid of Jewish interpretation to understand Jesus as he is presented in the Jewish Scriptures. By doing so, Torrance believes we can avoid distorting our perception of Jesus and allow him to truly disclose God to us.

3) Torrance’s View on Analogy and Conversion

Torrance challenges the views of theologians like Elizabeth Johnson and Catherine LaCugna, who approach analogy and conversion differently. Johnson understands analogy as a way to bridge the gap between human language and the divine mystery, while LaCugna sees conversion as a transformative process that leads to a deeper understanding of God. However, Torrance argues that both Johnson and LaCugna rely on a “picturing model” that fails to grasp the true nature of God and our relationship with Him. He contends that their views undermine the literal knowledge of God and misinterpret human freedom in Christ.

4) LaCugna’s Misunderstanding ofichoresis

Torrance highlights LaCugna’s misunderstanding of the traditional meaning of the doctrine of perichoresis. Perichoresis refers to the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Trinity. LaCugna deviates from this understanding by claiming that “the life of God does not belong to God alone” and that divine self-sufficiency is a philosophical myth. Torrance argues that she fails to recognize the uniqueness and fullness of God’s being and misinterprets the relationship between God’s life and creation.

5) Gender and the Imageless Relation with God

Torrance asserts that gender cannot be read back into God, despite the Hebrew language using dramatic images with feminine feelings when referring to God. He maintains that while these images may be used, they do not define or limit our understanding of God’s nature. By emphasizing an imageless relation with God, Torrance challenges any attempt to project gender characteristics onto God.

6) Overcoming Patriarchalism through Christ

Torrance argues that through Christ’s life, perfect obedience, and reconciliation of humanity to God, the sin of patriarchalism has already been overcome. He claims that this reconciliation establishes equality between men and women, removing any need to change the names of God or redefine them in light of social or political reasons.

7) The Problems with Changing the Name of God

Torrance maintains that it is unnecessary and impossible to change the names of God from Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to some other name. He contends that those who advocate for such changes often do so based on social, political, or religious reasons rather than theological grounds. Torrance warns against altering the names of God without proper justification and provides specific examples from the text to support his argument.

8) Problems with Paul Fiddes’ Views

Torrance identifies some problems with Paul Fiddes’ views but does not offer specific details in his work. However, it can be inferred that Fiddes’ perspective may deviate from Torrance’s emphasis on intuitive knowledge and imageless thinking about God.

9) Problems with Sallie McFague’s Views

Similar to Paul Fiddes, Torrance points out problems with Sallie McFague’s views without providing explicit details. Nevertheless, it can be surmised that McFague’s perspective may conflict with Torrance’s emphasis on intuitive knowledge and imageless thinking about God.

10) Problems Embedded in Rosemary Radford Ruether’s Views

Torrance also highlights problems embedded in Rosemary Radford Ruether’s views without offering specific explanations. It can be inferred that Ruether’s perspective may challenge Torrance’s understanding of intuitive knowledge, imageless thinking about God, and the uniqueness of God as Creator.

11) Karl Barth’s View on the Names of God

Karl Barth contends that the names Father and Son are not arbitrary symbols but truly represent the depth of God’s essence. He rejects the notion that these names are mere human constructs or symbols with no inherent meaning beyond human reality. Barth emphasizes that these names reflect a non-symbolical content intrinsic to God’s being.

In conclusion, tracing knowledge of God back to a center in God has significant implications for our understanding of His nature and our relationship with Him. T.F. Torrance’s emphasis on intuitive knowledge and imageless thinking allows us to avoid projecting our own cultural images onto Jesus and instead embrace his self-revelation within his Jewish context. By eschewing a picturing model and recognizing the limitations of human analogies, we can gain a deeper understanding of who God truly is and experience true freedom in Christ.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

Subject:
Type:
Pages/Words:
	Single spaced
	approx 275 words per page
Urgency:
Level:
Currency:
Total Cost:

No More Worries!

Paper Formatting

No Lateness!

AEW Guarantees

Tracing Knowledge of God: Thinking from a Center in God

Sample Answer

This question has been answered.

Compute Cost of Paper

Our Services

Why Choose Us