# Knowledge of God in himself



## ChristianTrader (Apr 8, 2007)

What do we know concerning God in himself as opposed to God as he relates to us. It seems that there are a couple answers to that question going around and each one leads to vast consequences in one's view of God.

Also any info on books or articles on the subject would be appreciated.

CT


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Apr 8, 2007)

Jonathan Edwards is the master of this topic checkout the website www.jonathanedwards.com


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 9, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> What do we know concerning God in himself as opposed to God as he relates to us. It seems that there are a couple answers to that question going around and each one leads to vast consequences in one's view of God.
> 
> Also any info on books or articles on the subject would be appreciated.
> 
> CT



We cannot stray beyond Scripture - what God has not revealed man cannot know. All theology exists in mystery; notice how the apostle Paul so often bursts into doxology when he reflects on what God is towards us rather than in Himself. 
Calvin (The Institutes) is superb, see http://calvinismonline.blogspot.com/ (in loc.).


----------



## Civbert (Apr 9, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> What do we know concerning God in himself as opposed to God as he relates to us. It seems that there are a couple answers to that question going around and each one leads to vast consequences in one's view of God.



What does "in himself" and "as he relates to us" mean?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 9, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> We cannot stray beyond Scripture - what God has not revealed man cannot know.



"or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1:6).

There are some things that men want to add that can not be deduced from Scripture - and those things we can not know. 




Dieter Schneider said:


> All theology exists in mystery; notice how the apostle Paul so often bursts into doxology when he reflects on what God is towards us rather than in Himself.
> Calvin (The Institutes) is superb, see http://calvinismonline.blogspot.com/ (in loc.).



This I find confusing: "All theology exists in mystery". In scripture, when it speaks of mystery, it always speaks of things that _were_ hidden, but are now revealed in (because of or due to) Christ. Biblical mystery are those things now revealed to us because we now "have the mind of Christ".


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 10, 2007)

http://theologicallycorrect.com

I'm currently doing a video series (for upload on YouTube) as well as a written series on the Doctrine of God.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 10, 2007)

Civbert said:


> "or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1:6).
> 
> There are some things that men want to add that can not be deduced from Scripture - and those things we can not know.
> 
> ...




Our starting point surely must be the self-disclosure of God. It is not useful for us to know more – indeed, it is presumptuous to speculate. I'd be happy to use Calvin's concept of the 'incomprehensibility' of God in stead of the word 'mystery'. If your theology does not lead you to doxology then there is something tragically wrong. God is 'ever beyond'. There is, in the words of S Kierkegaard, 'an infinitive, qualitative difference' between God and His creation. 
For your personal edification Id refer you to J Packer, viz. http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ple&search_kind=and&phrase=Packer+audio&B1=Go
Every blessing!


----------



## Civbert (Apr 10, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Our starting point surely must be the self-disclosure of God. It is not useful for us to know more – indeed, it is presumptuous to speculate. I'd be happy to use Calvin's concept of the 'incomprehensibility' of God in stead of the word 'mystery'. If your theology does not lead you to doxology then there is something tragically wrong. God is 'ever beyond'. There is, in the words of S Kierkegaard, 'an infinitive, qualitative difference' between God and His creation.
> For your personal edification Id refer you to J Packer, viz. http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ple&search_kind=and&phrase=Packer+audio&B1=Go
> Every blessing!



I disagree on speculation - I think it is both healthy an useful to speculate - the only requirement is that one is clear about what ideas are speculative. 

But do you not agree that we must include not only revelation, but that which we can deduce from revelation?

If you mean by doxology the praise and worship of God, I agree. Is that what you mean?

"God is ever beyond" seems to imply we can not know God. And " 'an infinitive, qualitative difference' between God and His creation" does not mean anything to me unless you can tell me in what regard - in knowledge, power, mercy? If in all things, it seems there is an impassible barrier between God and man - where man can have no knowledge of God and God really can not understand man. 

Wasn't Kierkegaard considered a neo-orthodox and existentialist?


And finally, back to the question - what does it means to know things concerning "God in himself".


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 10, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> God reveals truth through two books does He not, the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture?



Both books would fall into the category of knowledge of God as he relates to us. The issue is not one of truth for what God reveals to us as he relates to us is actual truth.

God in himself is kinda like knowing what God was doing before he created anything.



> Unsaved man thus can know something of God from creation (Romans 1) but this can never save for God's Revelation only is sufficient.



No one is contradicting such.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 10, 2007)

Civbert said:


> This I find confusing: "All theology exists in mystery". In scripture, when it speaks of mystery, it always speaks of things that _were_ hidden, but are now revealed in (because of or due to) Christ. Biblical mystery are those things now revealed to us because we now "have the mind of Christ".



How do you make sense of 2 Cor. 9:15? This not directly related to the thread but it seems to wreak havoc on a Clarkian system.

CT


----------



## Civbert (Apr 10, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> God in himself is kinda like knowing what God was doing before he created anything.


He was being. 

I not really sure at this point if what you are asking is a meaningful question. What we know of God is what he has revealed and what we can deduce from that revelation. If by your definition, this is not knowing God in himself, then there is nothing left to know as far as I can see. But I probably still don't understand what you are asking.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 10, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> How do you make sense of 2 Cor. 9:15? This not directly related to the thread but it seems to wreak havoc on a Clarkian system.
> 
> CT



I don't see any havoc caused by this single verse on a whole system. 

2Co 9:15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! 

Seem to speak of the greatness of God's blessings - and that how God will multiply those blessings is something we do not know. There is clearly some irony involved since at face value to speak of the unspeakable is a contradiction. In a similar way, saying that God is ineffable is a self contradiction. Since Paul's writing are full of descriptions of God's gifts to man, then it is not reasonable he means that God's gifts are literally indescribable. 

Many commentaries conclude that the "unspeakable gift" is in fact, Jesus Christ. But there, I said it!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 10, 2007)

Dieter,

You are quite right.

Our theologians affirm with one voice that we don't know God "in se" (in himself, as he knows himself, apart from his disclosure to us).

This is essentially the same theme/question under discussion in the "archetypal/ectypal" thread.

The Scottish Presbyterian theologian David Dickson (c.1583-1662), an associate of Robert Blair and Samuel Rutherford, prof. of theology at Glasgow and Edinburgh, and possibly a contributor to the Directory for Public Worship said (commenting on 1 Tim 6:16):



> _Whom no man hath seen] Arg._ 6. Although the reasons of his commands should not be manifest to us, yet for our Obedience and Faith it is sufficient to know, that God in himself is a light which cannot be approached, and an hidden Majesty, having his peculiar and proper essence, which our understanding cannot apprehend, nor see with a beatifical vision in this mortal life: Therefore it becomes us to adore, observe, and extol the pleasure of his will, rather than curiously to search into it: To him be honour and power for ever. David Dickson, _An exposition of all St. Pauls epistles, together with an explanation of those other epistles of the apostles, St. James, Peter, John & Jude _(London, 1659), 170



Ursinus, writing in the 1580s in what we have as his _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_ (ET, 123), says:



> God cannot be defined, for the reason that he is immense, and because we are ignorant of his essence. We may, however, describe him to a certain extent from the revelation whcih he has been pleased to make of himself.



It is true that Wollebius says, "God is known in himself and in his works" (ET, 37) he also says, "The essence of God is incomprehensible." Evidently, by "in se," he did not mean "as he is considered apart from his self-disclosure to us." By "in se" he means, "as distinct from creation." 

Van Mastricht said, "What the divine essence is in itself must be inaccessible to our intellect" (_Theoretico-practica theologia_, 2.3.3).

The Reformed summarized this notion with the slogan:

_finitum non capax infiniti_ - the finite is not capable of the infinite. 

We can and must know God truly, but not as he is _in himself_ considered apart from his self-disclosure to us.

rsc



Dieter Schneider said:


> Our starting point surely must be the self-disclosure of God. It is not useful for us to know more – indeed, it is presumptuous to speculate. I'd be happy to use Calvin's concept of the 'incomprehensibility' of God in stead of the word 'mystery'. If your theology does not lead you to doxology then there is something tragically wrong. God is 'ever beyond'. There is, in the words of S Kierkegaard, 'an infinitive, qualitative difference' between God and His creation.
> For your personal edification Id refer you to J Packer, viz. http://www.monergism.com/directory/...ple&search_kind=and&phrase=Packer+audio&B1=Go
> Every blessing!


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> David Dickson [cut] possibly a contributor to the Directory for Public Worship.



There must be some crossed wires here. Dickson did not attend the Assembly. There was talk of a Directory in Scotland with which Dickson was associated; but the Solemn League and Covenant put an end to it.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 10, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Our theologians affirm with one voice that we don't know God "in se" (in himself, as he knows himself, apart from his disclosure to us).



If "in himself" means "as he knows himself", then there's no point of debate. No one claims to know God _the way_ God knows himself. But that does not imply that our knowledge of God - that which He has disclosed - is itself different than what He knows. Those propositions that God has revealed to us _are _a part of God's knowledge, if "knowing God truly" is possible. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> ... "The essence of God is incomprehensible." .
> ... "What the divine essence is in itself must be inaccessible to our intellect"


 These seem to be platitudes at best and incoherent at worst. What is the "divine essence"? And if God has not revealed the answer, then this amounts to "we don't know what we don't know". 



R. Scott Clark said:


> We can and must know God truly, but not as he is _in himself_ considered apart from his self-disclosure to us.



It seems the problem is mainly one of clarity. Why not simply say, we don't know God they way God knows himself? There seems to be confusion regarding what "in se" means. And then the question "what do we know concerning God in himself" really asks "what do we know of God _the way God himself knows_?" And the answer is nothing. _The way God knows _is eternally and comprehensively. The way we know is by revelation and not comprehensively. So the "way" we know is contrary to the "way" God knows. 

I think some of the confusion is with the term "incomprehensible". Most will understand this to mean "impossible to understand". But if God is impossible to understand, then we can not know Him truly. The second meaning is "limitless: lacking or incapable of having limits". This definition correctly describes God's infinite knowledge. 

So what am I missing?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 10, 2007)

Civbert said:


> These seem to be platitudes at best and incoherent at worst. What is the "divine essence"? And if God has not revealed the answer, then this amounts to "we don't know what we don't know".


Do you consider the historic creeds and the Westminster Confession to consist of platitudes and incoherencies when they utilize essentially the same language?


> Chapter II
> Of God, and of the Holy Trinity
> 
> I. There is but one only,1 living, and true God, 2 who is infinite in being and perfection,3 a most pure spirit,4 invisible,5 without body, parts,6 or passions;7 immutable,8 immense,9 eternal,10 incomprehensible,11 almighty,12 most wise,13 most holy,14 most free,15 most absolute;16 working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,17 for His own glory;18 most loving,19 gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;20 the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;21 and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,22 hating all sin,23 and who will by no means clear the guilty.24
> ...


Which portions would you highlight as platitude and incoherent?



> It seems the problem is mainly one of clarity. Why not simply say, we don't know God they way God knows himself? There seems to be confusion regarding what "in se" means. And then the question "what do we know concerning God in himself" really asks "what do we know of God _the way God himself knows_?" And the answer is nothing. _The way God knows _is eternally and comprehensively. The way we know is by revelation and not comprehensively. So the "way" we know is contrary to the "way" God knows.


Are you asking why theologians don't use the language that you prefer here? I actually don't find your definition helpful or complete. 


> I think some of the confusion is with the term "incomprehensible". Most will understand this to mean "impossible to understand".


Not if you define your terms properly and they do not mean what you state they mean when they use the term.

From the Athanasian Creed:


> 8. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.



I'm trying to be friendly Anthony but you do realize that you're taking on the history of Christian theology here (especially Reformed formulations of them).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> There must be some crossed wires here. Dickson did not attend the Assembly. There was talk of a Directory in Scotland with which Dickson was associated; but the Solemn League and Covenant put an end to it.



Matthew,

Thanks for the clarification.

I realized that he was not at the Assembly and I was confused by the reference to a "directory." Your explanation makes sense.

rsc


----------



## Civbert (Apr 10, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Do you consider the historic creeds and the Westminster Confession to consist of platitudes and incoherencies when they utilize essentially the same language?


If you mean they use the same terms, they do use some. But the quotes I mentioned go beyond what the WCF says.


> ... "The essence of God is incomprehensible." .
> ... "What the divine essence is in itself must be inaccessible to our intellect"


 I do not find their sentiments in the WCF. The WCF is an fine example of cogent and coherent thought. 



SemperFideles said:


> Are you asking why theologians don't use the language that you prefer here? ...


I suggesting that some theologians are less than cogent when expressing what could be fairly simple ideas. The language they use is not important, the concepts they are trying to communicate are. 

And I'm suggesting that maybe there is some confusion regarding what historical theologians meant by incomprehensible. I would like someone familiar with the history to tell me if incomprehensible is meant as "impossible to understand" as _some _here seem to suggest, or does it mean the equally valid definition of being without limit. 

BTW I did not make up these definitions, I looked them up.


> in·com·pre·hen·si·ble [in kòmpri hénsəb’l]
> adjective
> 1. beyond understanding: impossible or very difficult to understand
> 2. limitless: lacking or incapable of having limits (archaic)
> ...



Notice that the second definitions is "archaic" which means "no longer in ordinary language". And since we're are talking about writings that a hundreds of years old, I suspect the confusion regarding the meaning of the incomprehensibility of God has to do with imposing a modern definition instead of the historical definition. 

My desire is to _find out _how the term is defined _by the persons using it_. It would be silly to impose my _preferred_ definitions on someone else's statements.

By the way, are you familiar with the historical definition of person? It isn't what you might assume. 



SemperFideles said:


> From the Athanasian Creed:
> 
> 
> > The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.


And what did they mean by incomprehensible?



SemperFideles said:


> I'm trying to be friendly Anthony but you do realize that you're taking on the history of Christian theology here (especially Reformed formulations of them).


It's good that you are trying to be friendly, but nothing I am saying is directed at you personally, so there's no call for you to be unfriendly. And even if I were "taking on the history of Christian theology" instead of trying to make sense out of it, it still would not warrant your being anything less than friendly. 

Rather than taking on historical reformed theology, I am trying to assume that most historical reformed theologians were sensible and not simply spewing pious sounding platitudes. I'm sure that some will take offense, but I don't consider quotes of theologians themselves as primary authority. The primary authority is the Scriptures, the WCF and creeds are secondary, and the writings of the fathers are a distant third. And not all of the fathers produced sound doctrine. So I will not assume otherwise.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 10, 2007)

Athanasian Creed:

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

and the original Latin: 

8. Increatus Pater: increatus Filius: increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2007)

A negation is not knowledge of a thing in itself, but a statement as to what a thing is not. Incommunicable attributes are negations, whereby creaturely imperfection is denied to God. Ergo, a claim to know the incommunicable attributes is not a claim to know God in and of Himself, but rather a humble confession that God exceeds our creaturely limitations.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 10, 2007)

A good example of some of this discussion is the doctrine of the trinity: one God who exists as three Persons. This is a truth about God that we would have no way of knowing if God had not revealed it to us in Scripture. There is no way we humans could have discerned the trinitarian nature of God from general revelation alone; nor could we have discovered its truth just by pondering about God with our feeble human brains. It took special revelation; God had to make the first move for us to know this. Otherwise, God's trinitarian nature would be unknowable.

Regarding how much we can know about God as He is in Himself: Deuteronomy 29:29 is a very important passage of Scripture; good for thinking about theology; good as a hermeneutical principle when studying Scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 11, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Athanasian Creed:
> 
> 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
> 
> ...



OK, then number 9:


> 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.


Does the original even have numbers in it?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> A negation is not knowledge of a thing in itself, but a statement as to what a thing is not. Incommunicable attributes are negations, whereby creaturely imperfection is denied to God. Ergo, a claim to know the incommunicable attributes is not a claim to know God in and of Himself, but rather a humble confession that God exceeds our creaturely limitations.



What are you referring to? Are you responding to: "The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated." That is a communicable attribute of God.

A claim to know the _incommunicable _attributes is nonsenses. (Please, I am referring to the idea, not any person.) 

The statement "The Father uncreated" is a positive statement with negative term. By the negative term implies a positive - so that we see the implication that God is eternal. 

Are you endorsing to Negative Theology. Surely not.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> OK, then number 9:
> 
> Does the original even have numbers in it?



Sure. I, II, III, IV, V ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 11, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Sure. I, II, III, IV, V ...



It's just strange because I found a bunch of different variants online. I need to change the version on the temeculaopc.org website if the numbering is incorrect. Are you certain that your numbering is accurate?


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It's just strange because I found a bunch of different variants online. I need to change the version on the temeculaopc.org website if the numbering is incorrect. Are you certain that your numbering is accurate?



No, but it would be interesting to see what's different. Maybe your copy has the same statements in a different order. 

Here's where I found the Latin "original": http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html

At the end are some notes on the Creed itself which might answer the question - I haven't read it all yet.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2007)

I noticed the Latin for incomprehensible is immensus which means immense , vast, boundless. So it appears that the definition "impossible to understand" is not acceptable. 



> 9. Immensus Pater: immensus filius: immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html





> immensus -a -um [immense , vast, boundless]; n. as subst. [immense size, immensity].
> http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=immensus&ending=


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 11, 2007)

Civbert said:


> I noticed the Latin for incomprehensible is immensus which means immense , vast, boundless. So it appears that the definition "impossible to understand" is not acceptable.



Then it seems that you have a weird view of "understanding". We understand bounds, we do not understand boundless.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 11, 2007)

bookslover said:


> A good example of some of this discussion is the doctrine of the trinity: one God who exists as three Persons. This is a truth about God that we would have no way of knowing if God had not revealed it to us in Scripture. There is no way we humans could have discerned the trinitarian nature of God from general revelation alone; nor could we have discovered its truth just by pondering about God with our feeble human brains. It took special revelation; God had to make the first move for us to know this. Otherwise, God's trinitarian nature would be unknowable.
> 
> Regarding how much we can know about God as He is in Himself: Deuteronomy 29:29 is a very important passage of Scripture; good for thinking about theology; good as a hermeneutical principle when studying Scripture.



Somewhat related quote by David Calhoun:

"I would suggest two areas of concern that I would like to express to the Federal Vision advocates—concerns that Waters has clarified for me with his presentation and critique of their teaching. 

One. The Federal Vision theology tends toward speculation, especially in its views of the Trinity. Its discussion of the inner workings of the Trinity (as covenant within the Godhead) goes beyond the limits of biblical revelation and probes into "God as He is in Himself"—a depth of understanding that, according to Calvin, has not been revealed to us. We can only know "God as He is toward us," and with that knowledge we must be satisfied."

CT


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Then it seems that you have a weird view of "understanding". We understand bounds, we do not understand boundless.
> 
> CT



So God is "impossible to understand"?! In which case, we do not know God truly as Dr. Clark asserts.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 11, 2007)

Civbert said:


> So God is "impossible to understand"?! In which case, we do not know God truly as Dr. Clark asserts.



Who said we cannot understand God? It has been clearly stated that his essense aka "Him in Himself" cannot be understood. Fortunately for us God also relates to us unessentially. For example in the incarnation, God took on non essential features and interacted with us.

CT


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Who said we cannot understand God? It has been clearly stated that his essense aka "Him in Himself" cannot be understood. Fortunately for us God also relates to us unessentially. For example in the incarnation, God took on non essential features and interacted with us.
> 
> CT



So then incomprehensible does not mean "impossible to understand".


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 11, 2007)

Civbert said:


> So then incomprehensible does not mean "impossible to understand".



How does that question follow in any way from what I wrote previously?

CT


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> How does that question follow in any way from what I wrote previously?
> 
> CT



Which question are you responding to? 

I can answer a question with a question too. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=258135&postcount=30


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 11, 2007)

*My bit!*

B. B. Warfield, with reference to the subject under review, rightly claims that “at the root of all lies Calvin’s profound persuasion that this is a subject too high for human speculation and his consequent fixed resolve to eschew all theoretical constructions upon it, and to confine himself strictly to the revelations of Scripture”.
Calvin constantly warns his readers against trespassing beyond the boundaries of Scripture. Luther's position is worth studying, too, for which see www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherstheologyofthecross.html. 
Both Calvin and Luther refused to ground their theology in philosophy. Faith must rest content with Deut.29:29. Our epistemological starting point, in other words, is the 'given' by God ('senkrecht von oben'). 
The 'infinite, qualitative difference' (I have borrowed Kirekegaard's terminology which does not mean I endorse him, but I believe, with Calvin, that all truth is God's truth) can be related to our epistemic distance to God (who, also in the Incarnate Son, is 'wholly other') both in a metaphysical (we are finite) and an ethical (the noetic effect of sin) sense. In this connection it is worth pointing to how Calvin starts his Institutes! In passing let it be remembered that he has no ‘locus de Deo’. 
Calvin also rightly insists that God accommodates Himself to make communication possible, hence, e.g., the use of anthropomorphic God language (The Institutes 1.13.1). Our knowledge of God is never exhaustive, but true, nevertheless and sufficient. 
Our ultimate concern may be summed up in Calvin's words again: “It is not so much our concern to know who he is in Himself, as what he wills to be toward us” (The Institutes, 3.2.6). It is possible to study theology without knowing God at all! Interestingly enough. Melanchthon rightly says of Christ, 'to know Christ is to know His benefits'.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> B. B. Warfield, with reference to the subject under review, rightly claims that “at the root of all lies Calvin’s profound persuasion that this is a subject too high for human speculation and his consequent fixed resolve to eschew all theoretical constructions upon it, and to confine himself strictly to the revelations of Scripture”.



My question to you is this - should one also deduce those truths which follow from Scripture by good and necessary consequence?


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 11, 2007)

Civbert said:


> My question to you is this - should one also deduce those truths which follow from Scripture by good and necessary consequence?



Your question has no bearing on what God has not revealed about Himself. One cannot speak of God by speaking about man - in a loud voice (ok this thought is not original). I think that in relation to the hiddeness of God you are entering forbidden territory -Calvin warns of ending up in a labyrinth. Let God be God! Psalm 131 is a wonderful Psalm. 
Every blessing, 

Dieter


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2007)

Civbert said:


> What are you referring to?



The OP.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 12, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Your question has no bearing on what God has not revealed about Himself. One cannot speak of God by speaking about man - in a loud voice (ok this thought is not original). I think that in relation to the hiddeness of God you are entering forbidden territory -Calvin warns of ending up in a labyrinth. Let God be God! Psalm 131 is a wonderful Psalm.
> Every blessing,
> 
> Dieter



Certainly it does. God reveals himself in Scripture. Since these are true, then so too are all things we can deduce from those truths. 

Do then you believe those things we can deduce from Scripture are "forbidden territory"? Or are you strictly speaking of deductions that tell us who God is. For instance the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

What is this "hiddeness of God". 

Let me make this statement - anything that can be deduced about God from those things He has revealed to us in Scripture, are themselves effectively revealed - they are neccessarily true. Those things we can deduce by good and necessary consequences about God, are not by definition of the "hiddeness of God". So I see no chance of entering "forbidden territory". I believe we have a mandate from God to work out the meaning of Scripture - to study and digest it. This requires us to use our God given ability to reason logically to produce a systematic theology.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 12, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The OP.


 What is the OP?


----------

