Reading Notes: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John Frame

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1987.

This book is great. It was highly enjoyable reading it again front-to-back. On the surface, it is about Christian epistemology—the theology of knowledge, but on another level JMF is clearly trying to stir up our Christian imaginations (I will elaborate later).

In his Preface, JMF says that this book was written as a text for his seminarian course called The Christian Mind, and that his pedagogical approach to the subject “begins with a brief introduction to the Reformed faith, which is followed by a unit on the Word of God, and ends with discussions of apologetics . . . In between those two units—Word of God and problems of apologetics—comes a section on the theology of knowledge . . . which is the subject of this volume” (xv).

Once you strip away all the appendixes, the book's presentation is threefold and straightforward: Part One discusses the objects of knowledge (What do we know?); Part Two discusses the justification of knowledge (What right do we have to believe what we do?); and Part Three discusses the methods of knowledge (How do we obtain knowledge?).

I found this early quote helpful for a high-level understanding of JMF's book: “The knowledge of God [What do we know?] is a human response to God's Word and is justified [What right do we have to believe what we do?] by its conformity thereunto” (4).

Throughout the book the “biblical concept of divine lordship” is a sustained theme, which JMF summarizes with a triad: God's control | authority | personal presence (17). In light of this, in answering the question What do we know? JMF argues that:

Knowledge is under God's control. First, our knowledge of God is always based on revelation. In our coming to know God, it is He who takes the initiative. . . . Furthermore—at least in the postfall context—this revelation is gracious; we do not deserve it, but God gives it as a 'favor' to us as part of His redemptive mercy . . . Thus, the origin of knowledge is trinitarian: The Father knows all and reveals truth to us by the grace of His Son through the work of the Spirit in our hearts. Note how each person of the Trinity is involved in the knowing process . . . Thus it is all of God, all of Grace. We know God because He has first known us as His children” (42).

This knowledge (given to us as a favor of God's redemptive mercy) is subject to God's authority, therefore, it “is inevitably an obedient knowledge,” e.g., “there is a 'circular' relation between knowledge and obedience in Scripture. . . . It is certainly true that if you want to obey God more completely, you must get to know Him; but it is also true that if you want to know God better, you must seek to obey Him more perfectly” (43).

So . . . 

In summary, 'knowledge of God' essentially refers to a person's friendship (or enmity) with God. That friendship presupposes knowledge in other senses—knowledge of facts about God, knowledge of skills in righteous living, and so forth. It therefore involves a covenantal response of the whole person to God in all areas of life, either in obedience or in disobedience. It involves, most focally, a knowledge of God's lordship—of His control, His authority, and His present reality (48).

JMF throughout the book is obviously talking about The Christian Mind, however, he is advocating that theologians must learn to analyze before reacting (30), and that an important element of that process, in light of the biblical concept of divine lordship, is that our our beliefs must cohere with Scripture . . . and if they don't, then Scripture has a “veto-power over beliefs that are inconsistent with its teachings” (128). Regarding the question How do we obtain knowledge?, JMF's conclusion is that Scripture is the ultimate justification of all human knowledge (129).

On the one hand, we need to remember what I quoted earlier, that human knowledge subject to God's authority is inevitably an obedient knowledge, while on the other hand, we must remember JMF's conclusion above, that Scripture is the ultimate justification of human knowledge. If we balance those two thoughts it is obvious that the biblical concept of knowledge is never merely propositional ascent. Therefore, Christian epistemology (the theology of knowledge) is a theology that is defined as “the application of the Word by persons to all areas of life” (81) JMF says this means “A person does not understand Scripture, Scripture tells us, unless he can apply it to new situations, to situations not even envisaged in the original text” (84).

So, according to JMF, if one warrants that theology = application, then there is no dichotomy between meaning and application. In light of this, JMF's subordinate aim makes sense—he is attempting to stir up Christian imaginations because “we shall see that it is arbitrary to insist that theology be written in a formal, academic style. Rather, theologians ought to make broad use of human language—poetry, drama, exclamation, song, parable, symbol—as Scripture does” (85). But why this JMF-insistence that we make broad use of human language? Well, because JMF believes that “On a Christian basis we must say that God made human language for His own purposes, the chief of which was to relate us to himself. Human language is (perhaps even chiefly, or “primarily”) a medium by which we can talk to one another about God” (35). Since JMF believes that “Imagination has much to do with any attempt to do things in a new or different way” (340), it would seem that JMF is urging up-and-coming theologians to “creatively” talk to others and one another about God.

This imaginative way of doing theology made me think of some contemporary authors: Peter J. Leithart (Deep Exegesis), James K. A Smith (Desiring the Kingdom and Imagining the Kingdom), and David Bentley Hart (The Devil and Pierre Gernet: Stories). I especially thought of Hart's work, since in the Author's Apologia he says, “I have written stories and poems all of my life, or at least since fairly early childhood, whereas I conceived an interest in philosophical theology only when, as a young man, I went searching for God; and then, as things turned out, I came to conclude that God is no more likely (and probably a great deal less likely) to be found in theology than in poetry or fiction” (ix).

JMF is a top-shelf theologian. So, obviously I was challenged (even convicted) by a great deal of what he had to say, e.g., his consistent call “to do theology” with an irenic posture. However, I was most edified when he would mention the hindmost perspective of his triadic summary of divine lordship—the presence of God, e.g., “Thus God's lordship is a deeply personal and practical concern. God is not a vague abstract principle or force but a living person who fellowships with His people” (17).