My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

I am a 1967 graduate of The Citadel (Distinguished Military Student, member of the Economic Honor Society, Dean's List), a 1975 graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div., magna cum laude, member of the Phi Alpha Chi academic honor society); I attended the Free University of Amsterdam and completed my History of Dogma there and then received a full scholarship from the Dutch government to transfer to the sister school in Kampen, Holland. In 1979 I graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Churches of Holland (Drs. with honors in Ethics). My New Testament minor was completed with Herman Ridderbos. I am also a 2001 Ph.D. graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (Systematic Theology) in Philly with a dissertation on the "unio mystica" in the theology of Dr. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). I am a former tank commander, and instructor in the US Army Armor School at Ft. Knox, KY. I have been happily married to my childhood sweetheart and best friend, Sally, for 43 years. We have 6 children, one of whom is with the Lord, and 14 wonderful grandchildren.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The Loss of Certainty

A Previous Paradigm Shift

It is in vogue these days to speak of paradigm shifts, getting traction, a theology’s trajectory, or throwing someone under the bus. We are a nation of buzz words. What old Bri and the Emergent church bar hoppers tell us is that we are in dire need of a mega-deep-power shift in the Christian Church. That remains to be seen, of course, but to the Emergent church devotees, old Bri is close to infallible. Not bad for someone who revels in the thought that he never studied theology. My take on non-leader Bri is that a quick read of his books makes it patently clear that he doesn’t have a clue theologically.

One of the hallmarks of the Emergent church movement—and the “pomos” (postmoderns) is the loss of certainty in faith. Recklessly flying in the face of Scripture, old Bri and the tribe of ardent enemies of certitude regale us with pointed diatribes of how certainty is yesterday’s news. They do this in spite of the fact that Scripture speaks repeatedly about Christians knowing this or that. They ignore Jesus’ words when he says, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32.) The Greek word for “know” (ginw,skw; ginōskō) carries with it the connotations of “know,” “come to know,” “comprehend,” “to be quite sure of.” In 1 Thessalonians 1:4, Paul possesses knowledge of the fact that those he addressed were chosen by God. In short, the Bible is filled with reference upon reference of Christians knowing all kinds of things and having certainty about God’s truth.

The great Dutch theologian, Herman Bavinck, wrote a little book dealing with the certainty of faith (De zekerheid des geloofs)[1] that is well worth the time it takes to read it anytime, but particularly during this time of the year it is a highly appropriate read. Moreover, without Bavinck ever hearing of the Emergent church movement and its emphasis on the lack of certainty and its de-emphasis on knowledge, he knew his Church History and that fads like the Emergent church movement came and went. Bavinck, as a good Reformed theologian, was concerned to point out that the Word of God points us to certainty and assurance. With his finger on the pulse of movements in the Netherlands that the Emergent church movement reflects today (there is nothing new under the sun), Bavinck shows us the path of Scripture as opposed to philosophy and ideology.

The work is divided into four chapters, with the first providing an introduction to the subject (The Loss of Certainty). In future installments, we’ll take some time and outline what Bavinck teaches in this valuable work. We will also draw comparisons to some of the modern movements such as the TBN[2] brand of pietism as well as modern preachers. Of course, we’ll also compare Bavinck’s words with what passes for theology in the Emergent church movement. We’ll begin where Bavinck does: with the French Revolution (1789).

The Loss of Certainty

The French Revolution was an earth shattering event in many ways. It marked a “radical change of direction introduced into the life and thought of the nations” that disrupted the continuity of history.[3] Prior to the French Revolution, there were ages of authority and objectivity. With the advent of the French Revolution, however, an era was ushered in where “the subject proclaims its freedom and asserts its rights in every area of human existence.”[4] Sound familiar? Bavinck could just as well be speaking about our time.

Bavinck contends that the Reformation struck a blow to oppressive authority, by taking its starting point in faith. “In the Reformation the believing subject arose against the oppressive authority of the infallible church and boldly shook off the painful yoke of an old tradition.”[5] In denouncing the oppressive nature of the Roman Catholic Church, Bavinck is reminding us that the Reformers returned to Scripture. The Reformers and the Reformation did not see the infallible scriptures as oppression. Quite the contrary was the case. The inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Word was true liberation providing absolute truth for God’s covenant people.[6]

It should be pointed out that the Reformers taught and envisaged both a formal and practical view of God’s Word. Formally, it was the deposit of God’s truth containing the doctrine Christians needed to live practical spiritual lives. In earlier Protestantism, Bavinck opines, “the authority of that Word was initially so unshakable that people rarely doubted it—not even in their heart. There was faith and there was certainty.”[7] This was neither, as some think today, a time of naïveté nor was it the vestige of Middle Ages superstition. To Bavinck’s mind, the fact that God’s people were convinced they possessed the truth was indicative of a “vital religious life.”[8] In such times of spiritual growth and joy “you don’t doubtingly examine the foundations of your hope. You speak as one having authority and not like the Pharisees.”[9] There is not arrogance, but humility; in that humility, however, the believer is assured that in his graciousness God has provided an infallible rule and norm for all of life.

Gradually, however, after the middle of the eighteenth century things began to change. The deep paradigm shift that occurred then is precisely what ole Bri, Joel Osteen, Robert Schuller, and others advocate: it really is all about me. Bavinck describes the same phenomenon as the subject coming into its own.[10] That is to say, if the Reformation and early Post-Reformation were about the authority of God’s Word, by mid-eighteenth century people turned their gaze inward. They weren’t immediately consummate navel gazers, but were definitely heading in that direction. Critical reason awakened and on the backs of horse drawn carriages and on the flanks of horse and oxen there were bumper stickers that read: Question everything. Of course, this was not an isolated event. This new, unlimited sense of freedom brought with it emancipation from almost everything the past held sacred.

And when you stop and ponder this for a moment, it becomes patently clear that this is one of contemporary society’s foundational pillars. We call it by different names, but it’s really the same old pile. While postmoderns speak of relativism, Bri and the boys descry everything sacred from the past, except—for whatever reason—the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. Has anyone ever asked Bri why he settled on those two, especially since he finds Scripture so unclear on major issues, except, of course, global poverty and global warming.

Like today, Bavinck describes his time (1854-1921) as dominated by doubt, which he deems to be the sickness of his century, bringing with it “a string of moral problems and plagues.”[11] Again I ask: sound familiar? Have relativism and the Emergent church movement solved the moral problems facing our country; the world? Has, for example, McLaren’s pseudo-ethics, Everything Must Change, pointed in a clear direction regarding what God says about Christians ethics in a secular world? The short answer is: No. Why you’re well past page 200 before you find the word “sin” on ole Bri’s lips. Once he used it describing what someone else said, but hip Bri is way cool and knows (sort of) that modern man doesn’t like to hear words like that; neither does Bri for that matter. Bavinck’s assessment of his era is spot on concerning modern man and the mega-church and Emergent church movements: “There is much noise and movement, but little genuine spirit, little genuine enthusiasm issuing from an upright, fervent, sincere faith.”[12]

What are the roots of such a lack of true faith? In fact, what is true faith anyway? Let’s begin with the latter question and work backwards. It may constitute knocking down an open door, but in a day and age when the movement known as evangelicalism has embraced the most aberrant and heterodox movements we dare not assume that we all know what constitutes biblical faith. To my mind, the simplicity of the Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day 7, Q/A 21) summarizes Scripture best when it says:

Q. What is true faith?

A. True faith is a sure knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in his Word. At the same time, it is a firm confidence that not only to others, but also to me, God has granted forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation, out of mere grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. This faith the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel.[13]

What, then are the roots of such a lack of true faith? Bavinck’s belief is that “Nowhere is this more true than among theologians.”[14] Now hold on a minute! Don’t jump to conclusions. There are a lot of very, very good theologians out there today, but there are also some very, very bad ones. These theologians, for better or worse, teach the pastors, who, in turn, for better or worse, teach Christians. For the sake of illustration, let’s say that the theologians are unorthodox.[15] They teach heterodoxy and pride themselves in either being way left of center or in having no theological training whatsoever. These men and women attack every doctrine in Scripture, cherry picking what they like and jettisoning what they don’t. These folks cannot decide whether YHWH was male or female and are pretty sure that Jesus was a pacifist who tolerated every sin on the planet and never judged anyone for anything. Obviously, there are all kinds of gradations to this scenario, but each one of them impacts the dominating question both in Bavinck’s time as well as in ours: the ground of spiritual certainty.[16]

Bavinck was instrumental in teaching the Reformed Christians in the Netherlands the importance of a biblical life and worldview. He was very involved in his country as a cultural analyst, a Senator, and a teacher of Dogmatics and Ethics. Bavinck sought to view all of life as an organic whole. He insisted that both of these had to be operative in the Christian’s life and that both had to be dependent on Scripture for their content. His definition of the relationship between Dogmatics and Ethics is well worth learning.

Dogmatics describes the deeds of God done for, to, and in human beings; ethics describes what renewed human beings now do on the basis of and in the strength of those divine deeds. In dogmatics human beings are passive; they receive and believe; in ethics they are themselves active agents. In dogmatics, the articles of the faith are treated; in ethics, the precepts of the Decalogue. In the former, that which concerns faith is dealt with; in the latter, that which concerns love, obedience, and good works. Dogmatics sets forth what God is and does for human beings and causes them to know God as their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; ethics sets forth what human beings are and do for God now; how, with everything they are and have, with intellect and will and all their strength, they devote themselves to God out of gratitude and love. Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God; ethics is that of the service of God. The two disciplines, far from facing each other as two independent entities, together form a single system; they are related members of a single organism.[17]

The Dutch ethicist, Jochem Douma, put the matter a little more succinctly, but makes the same point: “Dogmatics without ethics is empty; ethics without dogmatics is blind.”[18] Much of modern evangelicalism has distanced itself from both Bavinck and Douma and what it has left in its wake is the collateral damage of people who call themselves Christians not knowing the fundamental, rudimentary, indispensable elementary truths of Scripture, a group of people who are blatantly ignorant of the history of the Church, along with its traditions, and people who call themselves Christians, who are moral relativists. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.

During the last presidential election I wondered how someone with even a basic understanding of Scripture could vote for a man who is so outspokenly pro-abortion. For any reasonable believer, who read what the Bible says about man being created in the image of God and of the sanctity of life, it was both inconceivable and unconscionable that they could cast a vote for a man who has a 100% rating with Planned Parenthood and every known pro-abortion group in America. How can anyone who calls him- or herself a Christian rationalize those deaths?

How can anyone, who calls him- or herself a Christian, believe that the Bible is unclear about homosexuality? How can pastors believe that? How can anyone who has studied the scriptures in the original languages come to that conclusion? The answer is actually rather simple. Once we strip away all the disclaimers about not wanting to sacrifice one’s intelligence and honest research and investigation, we come to the conclusion that a biblical worldview is lacking and these people would rather stand above the Bible than under its authority. It happened with the JEDP hypothesis, it happened with limited inspirationists, it happened with the Social Gospel crowd, and it still happens today with every theological hack and ideologue that comes down the pike.

Look at the churches that have abandoned orthodoxy. What is the result? It is similar to asking what it will be like to have Obama as President. You want to see what happens when Democrats take over? Look at Detroit, New Orleans, San Francisco, and the near-bankrupt state of California, where I live. What happens when the absolute authority of Scripture is abandoned? The mega-church movement where 90%-plus of those people cannot tell you where to find the Ten Commandments in the Bible, let alone tell you what they are, let alone tell you what they are in order. You see the same drill in the Emergent church movement. The leaders like McLaren, Wallis, Bell, Burke, Pagitt, Jones, Chalke, and others are confused and they confuse all those who hang around with them. They do it so tastefully though. Reading their works or listening to their lectures is tantamount to saying “Gamble responsibly” and “If you ever pose nude, make certain you do it tastefully.”

Listening to Bavinck, you get a very different sound. Here is an irenic, yet staunchly and unapologetically Reformed dogmatician, ethicist, and Christian man. He writes, “There is no more important question than the one concerning salvation, the rootedness of our hope in eternal life.”[19] Here is a man, who was an intellectual giant and one of the foremost and premier dogmaticians the Netherlands ever produced, speaking like a child of God. He continues, “Thus, our area of inquiry is circumscribed as holy ground, for it must be entered with reverence and fear. Here we touch the most intimate depths of the human heart. Here more than anywhere else we need a childlike and humble spirit, but at the same time a frank, unbiased attitude, in order to understand the life of religion in its inner essence and to purge it of all untruth and error.”[20] As we proceed, I’m convinced you’re going to observe that this is precisely what Bavinck does as a Reformed theologian.



[1] There is an English version entitled simply The Certainty of Faith, (St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press, Inc., 1980). For convenience, I’ll use the pagination of the English version.

[2] Trinity Broadcast Network.

[3] Bavinck, Certainty, 7.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid. Bavinck writes, “Nevertheless, in the principles of the Reformation, Christians remained bound to God’s Word as it came to them in the Old and New Testaments.”

[7] Ibid., 7-8.

[8] Ibid., 8.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 9.

[13] Cf. John 17:3, 17; Heb. 11:1-3; James 2:19; Rom. 4:18-21; 5:1; 10:10; Heb. 4:16; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:10; Rom. 3:20-26; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-10; Acts 16:14; Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21.

[14] Bavinck, Certainty, 9.

[15] For an excellent exposition of how this played out in the PCUSA, see John H. Leith, Crisis in the Church. The Plight of Theological Education, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997).

[16] Bavinck, Certainty, 9.

[17] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, (John Bolt [ed.] & John Vriend [trans.]), (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), p. 58.

[18] Jochem Douma, Responsible Conduct. Principles of Christian Ethics, (Nelson Kloosterman [trans.]), (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2003), p. 41.

[19] Bavinck, Certainty, 10.

[20] Ibid.



Labels:

24 Comments:

Blogger Blank Slate said...

Hello Ron;

Every time I read your blogs I am encouraged in my faith and am armed to defend it more ardently among the "New Christians" in my circles. God Bless you and your Family!

Terry

10:54 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Terry,
Thank you so much! Have a very Merry Christmas and thanks so much for stopping by.

2:55 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Are you sure?

7:18 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Absolutely. Relatively speaking, of course.

12:02 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

As long as you keep everything relative, it's okay. Otherwise, it's absolutely wrong.

6:40 AM  
Blogger Ron said...

We can say with relative certainty it's absolutely mysterious. Or is absolute certainty it's relatively mysterious?

8:27 AM  
Blogger Jhonsun said...

I think it's the second one...NO, the first one! I don't know...

10:51 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

I think jhonsun has said it best... Of course I can't be sure, but I think that it might be (if it doesn't hurt the other contributors' feelings)

4:22 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Icedawg,
Are you sure he said it best? I'm not sure, but I do know that Jesus would want you to be emergent.

7:33 PM  
Blogger Jhonsun said...

I don't know if I would be willing to say that Jhonsun said it best.

12:34 AM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Well it definitely hurt MY feelings.....I think....

8:21 AM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

You guys are going to have me breaking out into a rousing chorus of "Good Morning Starshine" before too long. "Glibby gloop glooby."

8:33 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Well, I don't know about Good Morning Starshine, but I do know that you cannot know anything for certain. I'm certain about that...sort of. But not knowing that you can know is different--somehow.

10:26 AM  
Blogger IceDawg said...

To me, Good Morning Sunshine means Terrible Night Overcast, subjectively speaking of course. I further wish to apologize for hurting Perkins' feelings and promise from now on to think that everything he says is right (subjectively) unless it hurts someone else's feelings.

10:58 AM  
Blogger jazzact13 said...

Once we strip away all the disclaimers about not wanting to sacrifice one’s intelligence and honest research and investigation, we come to the conclusion that a biblical worldview is lacking and these people would rather stand above the Bible than under its authority.

Very true, and here is a prime example of one of these emergents blatantly saying that.

http://pomomusings.com/2008/12/15/the-bible-and-homosexuality/

If it is the Bible that is causing us to delay accepting and celebrating LGBT persons as being fully human and fully created in the image of God, just as they are, then perhaps we need to say, “Enough with the Bible already…”

12:45 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

"Good Morning Starshine" was one of the songs from the musical/movie "Hair." I thought the hippie-pomo sentiments of that production fit the discussion. The line "glibby glub glooby" etc. is a part of the nonsensical lyrics of the song.

I think they have a lot in common with Emergent theology, although a certain Rev. Dr. Buist might disagree with me.

1:30 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

To all,
Since we are all making so much fun of PoMo thinking, may I share two questions to ask an Emergent?
These are questions I came up with that stops them dead in their tracks. In fact, they're so devestating that every Emergent I've used these questions on have only gotten hoppin' mad.

The minute you ask these questions, the Emergent and all on-lookers know the argument is over.

1. Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?

2. Is there such a thing as a right answer?

Ask both questions one after another, without a chance for an answer and ask them in that order.

Of course, if you are dealing with a PoMo who doesn't claim he is a Christian, omit the first question.

Hope this helps some of you.

God Bless,
Phil Perkins. PS--The second question just rocks them. They can't even TRY to give an answer. Insist on one, though.

1:37 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

Phil,
Great questions! Nails the case! I laughed reading them because they are so spot on!

2:27 PM  
Blogger Randy said...

Merry Christmas Ron!

This is cute and all. :)
Are you suggesting that God is fully able to be known?

If we can be certain of all things about God through the biblical text, then God is limited by the paper of the text.

Or is God bigger than the text?

While we call God many names as does the text, even the biblical text states that 'his name is above every name.'

In other words, any name for God isn't really sufficient.

So, if we can't even really give God a name that is fully adequate, is it possible that our mental constructions of God are not fully adequate either?

So, perhaps I can know God and something about God, but to suggest that I fully know God is not accurate according to the biblical text.

This would lead to suggesting that we know something of God, but we do not know God fully. In Corinthians 13, Paul makes the case that we don't yet fully know God. "Now we see through a dark glass..."

So, our knowledge of God is relative to what we will someday know of God. And even then, no name will be fully sufficient for God.

Perhaps nobody and no theological construct is capable of fully explaining God. This would suggest that all theologians and systematic theologies are still limited in understanding of God.

In other words, all theological systems are relatively limited in explaining God.

... And a Happy New Year too!

7:28 PM  
Blogger Randy said...

OH Phil, please let me try question 1 and 2.

Answer to Q. 1 - yES.
Answer to Q. 2 - yES.

That wasn't too hard. We could get philisophical and theological asking if the biblical text itself even asks those two questions, but I doubt its worth the time.

And if you want to know how I know, check out the answer to the first question in the Heidelberg Catechism.

And I happen to have that answer committed to memory.

... and Happy New Year!

7:40 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Randy,
You like the Heidelberg Catechism? Great stuff! What do you think of question 21? Here it is, in case you haven‘t memorized it yet:

Question 21. What is true faith?

Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.

You must love the HC, huh? Or were you just foolin’?

You’re right on both answers as you answered them, but do you understand just what that means?

Taking the second answer--that there is such a thing as a right answer--you have opposed Mr. Gleason here for believing he can know things about God. You don’t like his certainty that there are knowable right answers, but are now arguing about your certainty concerning your virtue in uncertainty.

Explain that, please. And don’t start keying off knowability, because you certainly seem to claim to know that uncertainty is a knowable fact.

Taking the first answer--that the Bible has the right to tell you how to think--you might start with two biblical ways of thinking you haven’t yet incorporated that I noticed right off the bat.

First, there’s a lot said in the Scripture about the certainty that one is EXPECTED to have. Jeremiah 9:23-24 says, “Thus says the LORD, "Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the LORD.”

You’ve ridiculed Mr. Gleason for his certainty; the Bible says he’s done well. Now is the time to start thinking just like the Bible tells us to think. You admitted it has the right, remember?

Or were you just foolin’?

Here’s another certainty passage: Ephesians 5:5-10 says, “For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.”

And then there are the passages which tell us just how evil it is to deny certainty. Romans 1 speaks of those “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” “Evident” means we can be certain.

Second, there is another thing about which the Bible tells us how to think. I am speaking of the have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet trick you played on Ron. You asked, “Are you suggesting that God is fully able to be known?” If he had said such a thing, you wouldn’t have to ask. When you accuse someone of doing something they didn’t so that you can impugn them, that’s called breaking the ninth commandment, isn’t it? Will you start thinking biblically about false witness?

Or were you just foolin’ with us again?

Now I have two more questions for you: 1. Do you know God? 2. Are you certain that you do?

Genesis 1:3 says, “dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux.” In English that means God knows and then perceives what is--AND that this is true because all that is exists simply because He decided to know it. (Look at the Hebrew vocab behind “chosen” in Gen 18:19, too.)

Think THAT through.

And after you have, explain just how a person or movement who wallows proudly in uncertainty can claim to be related in any way to the God described in Genesis 1:3.

It can’t be done.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The foundation of all true knowledge of God must be a clear mental apprehension of His perfections as revealed in Scripture.--A. W. Pink.

9:13 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Randy,
I got tired of typing last night, so I didn't finish. There are a number of logical connections you made that aren't.

First, you said that we can't know God's name. Actually, we do. If we allow the Bible the right to tell us how to think, let's think biblically about God's name. God gave us His name in Exodus. And that name was used hundreds of times all through out the OT in the third person form.

Second, you said, "If we can be certain of all things about God through the biblical text..." implying that Ron said that. He didn't. See the Pink quote again and notice how our knowledge of God is limited and how we can be certain of what is revealed about Him, by Him. And if you think as the Bible tells you to think (remember you agreed that it has that right) you will think that God's ways are above our ways.

Third, you said, "If we can be certain of all things about God through the biblical text, then God is limited by the paper of the text." Not so. An accurate description of anything is limited by the thing described, not vise-versa. Think it through. Otherwise we couldn't do science.

And, as noted before, your protasis isn't anything Ron said.

Also, certainty only demands that the description be accurate, not comprehensive. Illustration: What color is your wife's hair? You know. But do you know what genes make she has that makes her hair that color? You don't know that, but you still know her hair color don't you?

Fourth, you seem to assume that a name ought to be a full description. Why?

Do you know your wife's name?

Fifth, I see that you do admit that the Bible itself says
God is too high for us to know Him fully.

I take it we can know that about God with certainty based upon biblical revelation, right?

Think it through,
Phil.

7:36 AM  
Blogger Randy said...

whatever...

4:11 PM  
Blogger J. R. Miller said...

Thank you for this well crafted post. Very well done.

10:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home