Ok so I understand that:
 
·    Pragmatic knowledge of God is focused on activity – how we respond to God.
 
·    Imaginative knowledge of God is the words we use to describe Him, so using stories, metaphors. All are inadequate when describing God but help us view Him in a certain light.
 
·    Propositional knowledge does not involve claims at all but rather statements about God that are formed through logical analysis.
 
·    Economic claims are claims we make about God after seeing how people respond to Him. They contain a truth about God but we cannot say how they do.
 
·    Immanent claims are factual about what God is literally like regardless of the position and actions of His people.
 
·    Analogical speech is where one can learn the immanent through the economic because there is a sense of truth in it.
 
 
So here are my questions…...
 
1. Would it be fair to say that ‘pragmatic’ knowledge is linked with ‘economic’ claims? And ‘immanent’ claims are linked with ‘propositional’ knowledge – if indeed ‘propositional’ knowledge made claims rather than statements?
 
2. Is ‘analogical speech’ similar to ‘imagination’? As they both contain an essence of the immanent life of God but how we cannot say. In which case, is every discussion on the essence and person of God analogical, ‘using frail words to describe God’s immanent life’?!
 
3. Finally, do all these categories of defining our knowledge and describing the essence and the person of God all come down to the authority/authenticity of scripture? What I mean is, scripture is propositional (yes?) and if it truly is the ‘inspired word of God’ would the propositional then be the immanent – where we KNOW explicitly some of the revealed essence and person of God through what He reveals in scripture? That being true, not all that is discussed about God would be analogical speech would it?