Source: Ronnie Kurtz, “Light Unapproachable: Divine Incomprehensibility and the Task of Theology”, pp. 186-187

Thesis one: The doctrine of divine incomprehensibility is a revealed doctrine that has exegetical justification as well as support from theological reasoning. The Scriptures declare, demonstrate, and demand the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility.

Thesis two: The proper dogmatic location for the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility is the Creator-creature distinction. It is due to the distinction between God and his creation that he is out of the intellectual jurisdiction of humankind.

Thesis three: As the proper dogmatic location for the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility is the Creator-creature distinction, we negate alternative locations. While notions of “the size of God” or the “noetic effects of sin” may impact the creature’s ability to comprehend God, God is first and foremost incomprehensible not because he is merely bigger than sinful creatures but because he is altogether different from created beings.

Thesis four: Due to God’s being incomprehensible, he is out of both the intellectual and linguistic comprehension of creatures. Divine incomprehensibility and divine ineffability are therefore distinct but related theological affirmations.

Thesis five: Since God is outside the intellectual and linguistic jurisdiction of creatures, we cannot possess archetypal knowledge of God, nor can we name God univocally.

Thesis six: While naming God univocally is not obtainable for creatures, we can hope for more than theological equivocation. Due to God’s accommodation, the Spirit’s illumination, and creaturely participation, we can meaningfully name God using analogical language.

Thesis seven: While archetypal knowledge of God is not obtainable for creatures, we can still hope to possess meaningful ectypal knowledge as God has condescended and revealed himself in correspondence to our faculties allowing creatures to participate in divine wisdom.

Thesis eight: Ectypal knowledge and analogical language are meaningful and true. These are not “lesser” forms of knowledge and language for God, rather these are the forms of knowledge and language fitting for the creature.

Thesis nine: Given that theological contemplation is only possible because of God’s gracious act of accommodation, Christian theologians ought to see theological humility not only as virtuous but ontological necessary since the task of theology would be impossible unless God permits (Heb 6:3).

Thesis ten: Divine incomprehensibility brings into focus the eschatological telos of theological contemplation as we currently work as pilgrims, theologia viatorum, on our way toward the theologia beatorum. As we do theology in the crosshairs of the already/not yet, between the fall and the beatific vision, we continue to apprehend, but never comprehend, God.