On Revelation and Knowledge of God
Utrum revelatio sit actus ipsius Dei se manifestantis, non per deductionem rationis sed per communicationem Spiritus; et utrum cognitio Dei oriatur non ex speculatione humana sed ex participatione in Verbo revelato, ita ut hic actus cognoscendi simul sit passio et donum, quo Deus cognoscitur in ipso actu quo se revelat.
Whether revelation is the very act of God’s self-manifestation, not the product of rational deduction but the communication of the Spirit; and whether knowledge of God arises not from human speculation but from participation in the revealed Word, such that this act of knowing is at once reception and gift—God being known in the very act by which He reveals Himself.
Thesis
True knowledge of God (cognitio Dei) occurs only within revelation. Revelation is not the transmission of information about God but the divine act in which God gives Himself to be known. Hence, theology is not reflection upon an object but participation in a subject—the divine Word who both reveals and knows Himself.
Locus Classicus
Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ὁ εἰπών· Ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψει, ὃς ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
“For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” — 2 Corinthians 4:6
Paul here links revelation and cognition in a single act: the God who once created light now re-creates understanding. Knowledge of God is not attained but illumined—an inward illumination that mirrors the original fiat lux. In revelation, God remains the subject; human knowing is His radiance in us.
Ἄγνωστος μὲν ὁ Θεὸς κατ’ οὐσίαν, γνωστὸς δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐνέργειας αὐτοῦ.
“God is unknowable in essence, yet knowable in His energies.” — Gregorios Palamas, Triades I.3.21
Palamas captures the paradox of all theology: the divine nature transcends comprehension, yet through His self-manifesting operations (energeiai), God truly makes Himself known. Revelation is thus both concealment and disclosure—the finite intellect participates in the divine light without exhausting its source. The knowledge of God is a participation in His self-communication, not an inspection of His essence.“Die Offenbarung ist das Geschehen, in dem Gott sich selbst mitteilt.
“Revelation is the event in which God communicates Himself.” — Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik I/1, §4
For Barth, revelation is not primarily the transmission of information but the self-giving of God. The content and act of revelation coincide: to know God is to encounter Him in His self-utterance. This event occurs supremely in Jesus Christ—the Word of God spoken in history and received in faith through the Spirit.
From Paul through Palamas to Barth, a coherent theology of revelation emerges. Revelation is not human ascent but divine descent: the light shines, the energies manifest, the Word communicates Himself. Knowledge of God (cognitio Dei) is therefore participatory and receptive—an act in which the finite intellect is illumined by the infinite, enabled to know truly though never comprehensively. Revelation and cognition are thus one movement from God to creature: God making Himself known, and the creature knowing in that making.
Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ὁ εἰπών· Ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψει, ὃς ἔλαμψεν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν πρὸς φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν προσώπῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
“For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” — 2 Corinthians 4:6
Ἄγνωστος μὲν ὁ Θεὸς κατ’ οὐσίαν, γνωστὸς δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐνέργειας αὐτοῦ.
“God is unknowable in essence, yet knowable in His energies.” — Gregorios Palamas, Triades I.3.21
“Die Offenbarung ist das Geschehen, in dem Gott sich selbst mitteilt.
“Revelation is the event in which God communicates Himself.” — Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik I/1, §4
Explicatio
Revelation and cognition in theology are not parallel processes but one act viewed from two sides. When God reveals, He does not merely disclose propositions; He grants participation in His own self-understanding.
In the natural order of knowing, the subject apprehends an object. In revelation, the human knower is taken up into the act of divine self-knowledge. This is why revelation cannot be grasped through detached speculation. To know God is to be drawn into God’s own interpretive act—the Son’s eternal vision of the Father made present by the Spirit.
We may express this structurally (and then explain it):
Let R represent revelation, the act of divine self-disclosure.
Let K_h represent human knowledge of God, and K_d divine self-knowledge.
The theological relation K_h ← R → K_d means: human knowing of God arises from and participates in divine knowing through revelation. The arrows indicate that revelation is the mediating act linking the two, not a neutral transmission.
Thus, the nova lingua theologiae (developed in Disputatio IX) is the very medium of revelation’s occurrence. God speaks in human words, and in those words He both gives Himself and illumines human understanding. This is why theology’s language must be both faithful to its divine source and humble in its human form—it carries the mystery of divine cognition within finite utterance.
Objectiones
Ob I. According to an empiricist epistemology, knowing God by revelation is impossible, because genuine knowledge requires sensory data or empirical verification. Since God is invisible and transcendent, a claim to divine revelation or cognition cannot meet the criteria of knowledge. Hence theology’s claim to knowledge of God is at best symbolic or metaphorical, not genuine cognition.
Ob II. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly loving, then one would expect full clarity in divine revelation, so that human beings would know God unmistakably. Yet human experience is marked by ambiguity, dispute over revelation, and even ignorance of God’s being. Therefore the claim that God reveals Himself such that human cognition genuinely knows Him is doubtful.
Ob III. On the model of Karl Barth, revelation is not an object-of-knowledge but a divine event that confronts the human subject. One cannot therefore speak of “cognition of God” in the standard sense (as knowing a thing) when it comes to God. Theology must witness this event, not claim propositional knowledge. Thus the doctrine of cognition of God seems to import human epistemic categories into theology illegitimately.
Ob IV. Drawing on the apophatic tradition, one holds that God’s essence is utterly transcendent and beyond human concepts. Any attempt to speak of cognition of God risks projecting finite categories onto the infinite. Revelation may indicate God’s presence, but cognition of God qua God remains impossible. Theology must affirm unknowing rather than knowing.
Ob V. According to post-modern constructivist theology, our concepts of God are culturally, linguistically and historically conditioned. “Revelation” and “knowledge of God” are thus human constructions, not transcendent disclosures. To speak of cognition of God presumes universality of epistemic access which overlooks the diversity of human situatedness.
Responsiones
Ad I. While it is true that empirical knowledge depends on sensory input and verification, knowledge of God by revelation belongs to a different epistemic order, that of divine self-communication. God does not become an object among others but enters human cognition through the act of the Spirit. Thus revelation is not mere metaphor but the grounding of the cognitive relation: God authorises the knowing by revealing Himself. Human cognition remains finite and mediated, yet genuinely knows God insofar as it participates in the divine self-communication.
Ad II. The hiddenness of God and the ambiguity of human reception are real. Yet they do not negate that God reveals Himself; rather they indicate the finitude of human cognition and the mystery of divine freedom. Revelation is genuine, but its reception always occurs within historical, cultural, and existential constraints. Theology acknowledges the partiality of our knowledge (cf. “we see in a mirror dimly”) while affirming that cognition of God is possible because God discloses Himself. The fact that human cognition is limited does not show that cognition is impossible—instead it shows that the mode of cognition is participatory and mediated, not autonomous.
Ad III. Barth rightly emphasises revelation as event rather than object; theology is witness. Yet recognising revelation as event does not preclude cognition of God. The divine event triggers the cognitive relation: God speaks, human hearing occurs, understanding responds. Theology’s cognition of God is therefore event-grounded and relational rather than purely conceptual. The “object” known is not a thing outside but the living God who reveals. Thus knowledge of God remains propositional in one sense (we can speak truly of God) but always contextualised in the revelatory act.
Ad IV. The apophatic tradition protects the transcendence of God, but must be balanced with the cataphatic: God reveals Himself in ways we can know. The doctrine of cognition of God must affirm that while God’s essence remains ineffable, He reveals Himself truly in His acts and Word. Revelation does not exhaust God’s being but gives genuine knowledge of Him as He wills to be known. Theology holds that human cognition knows God analogically: we do not fully capture His essence, yet we know Him truly given His self-disclosure.
Ad V. Constructivism draws attention to the mediation of language and culture in theology—but revelation critiques and transcends those mediations. Knowing God by revelation means that human frameworks are not the origin of theology’s truth but the occasion for divine self-communication. Theology remains culturally embodied, yet its claim to knowledge is not simply human-constructed—it rests on God’s act of revealing. Therefore cognition of God is not eliminated by cultural mediation; instead it is enabled by the Spirit working within human contexts.
Nota
Revelation (revelatio) and knowledge (cognitio) form a single circle of divine communication. God reveals in order to be known, and He is known only in the revealing. This mutuality is the structure of the Trinitarian economy: the Father reveals through the Son; the Spirit causes that revelation to be received as knowledge within believers.
In the economy of faith, the Word that reveals becomes also the form of human knowing. Hence the ancient formula, fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”), describes not curiosity but participation: faith already contains understanding implicitly because it shares in the divine act of self-knowing.
If we recall earlier symbolic language, Tₙ, the “new language of theology,” is the linguistic body of revelation. Within this language, every true statement about God is a double movement:
from God to man (revelation, grace descending), and
from man to God (understanding, faith ascending).
These two movements coincide in the Spirit, the living bridge of knowledge.
Thus, theology is not about God as distant object but about God in actu loquendi et cognoscendi—in the very act of speaking and knowing Himself within us.
Determinatio
From the foregoing it is determined that:
Revelation is God’s own self-disclosure, not information about God but the communication of God Himself.
Knowledge of God (cognitio Dei) arises within this act of revelation as participation in divine self-knowing.
The Spirit mediates this communion, enabling the human mind to know God by sharing analogically in God’s own knowledge of Himself.
The nova lingua theologiae is the linguistic form of revelation—finite words rendered luminous by divine presence.
Therefore, theology’s cognitive act is not speculative but participatory: to know God is to dwell within the Word that both reveals and knows.
Transitus ad Disputationem XI: De Creatione et Intellegibilitate Mundi
In the tenth disputation, revelation was examined as the divine act of self-manifestation, wherein God is known not through speculative deduction but through participation in His self-communication. There we saw that knowledge of God arises when the human intellect, illumined by the Spirit, receives the Word as both the object and the principle of its own understanding. The divine act of revelation thus fulfills the very aim of cognition: to know reality as it is known by God Himself.
Yet if revelation discloses the nature of divine knowing, it also implies something about the nature of the world that is known. For the Word who reveals is the same Word through whom all things were made. Revelation, therefore, is not an intrusion into an otherwise mute cosmos but the unveiling of a world already constituted as meaningful. The divine self-disclosure presupposes a creation capable of bearing and conveying the intelligibility of God.
Hence theology must now turn from the epistemic to the ontological, from the act of knowing God to the structure of the world that makes such knowing possible. If the Word speaks, creation must be linguistic; if the Spirit illuminates, creation must be intelligible. The universe is not a collection of inert facts but a woven order of signification, a living discourse of divine wisdom in which reason and being coincide.
The question thus arises: is the intelligibility of the world a natural property of matter, or a participation in divine reason? Does the order discerned by science arise from within the world itself, or from the eternal Logos who grounds its rationality? The answer bears decisive weight for theology, for only if creation is intelligible through participation in divine wisdom can revelation and knowledge retain their unity with being.
We therefore advance to Disputationem XI: De Creatione et Intellegibilitate Mundi, wherein it will be asked how the world, created through the Word of God, possesses within itself an intelligible order; whether this intelligibility is autonomous or participatory; and how the Holy Spirit sustains this living communion between divine reason and the created cosmos, so that the world remains not merely existent, but knowable, meaningful, and good.
No comments:
Post a Comment