Do we actually, can we actually, mere humans, truly know anything about God?
Although it is usually helpful to define terms at the start of a discussion about knowing a thing, when it comes to the subject of God, I believe even starting with defining terms is fraught with difficulty. Hopefully, the reason will be apparent in the next few paragraphs. Since I would, nonetheless, like to start exploring the subject, a tentative definition for "God" is in order. And so, let me fly this one: God is the ultimate.
That should portend an excellent potential for a worldwide, common understanding of God amongst mankind, but alas, that is not what we find. The downfall of that potential is that such knowledge is still dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. People see what they want to, what they're willing to. Different assumptions will be brought to the task, different presumptions premised from the evidence. If one doesn't like the conclusion being led to, adjustments can be made.
Ultimate what? The ultimate source for all that is, the ultimate power that energizes and sustains all that is, the ultimate intellect that designed and directs all that is. That being so, I would think it would be impossible for all that is to not betray some intelligence concerning the nature of what is ultimately behind it. That is the sentiment behind the Apostle's words to the church at Rome. Creation has fingerprints all over it which betray the hidden perpetrator who created it. Paul said, in fact, that the evidence is so clear that ignorance or unawareness of God is inexcusable.
That should portend an excellent potential for a worldwide, common understanding of God amongst mankind, but alas, that is not what we find. The downfall of that potential is that such knowledge is still dependent upon the eyes of the beholder. People see what they want to, what they're willing to. Different assumptions will be brought to the task, different presumptions premised from the evidence. If one doesn't like the conclusion being led to, adjustments can be made.
The evidence may be plain enough in hindsight, it certainly is in divine sight, but the perception of the viewer makes all the difference between "message sent=message received" or error. Human perception does not exist in a vacuum detached from influences from other human faculties of mind and heart. How then is it even possible for a mere mortal to know anything reliable about a God who's not speaking to everyone for himself-- even with perfect circumstantial evidence?
What more can we say about mankind, the imperfect perceiver of the God behind it all? A bit more, at least. Humans are error prone in virtually every way. We are limited in virtually every way. We are blind in so many ways, for how often do we experience eureka moments upon looking at the same thing we've seen obliviously a thousand time before. What is the likelihood that such a creature could accurately plumb the greater depths beneath the surface of things?
People themselves are merely the surface in a matter a speaking. Though we are part of the creation itself, we don't even understand ourselves. Getting to the truth behind ourselves would entail a dizzying loop, like staring down the endless hall of images in mirrors facing one another. Infinite regress sure doesn't stop us from trying. We might be better off trying to bottle the wind or tilting at windmills.
It seems to me, what we need is an active witness from the One behind it all-- a personal commentary on the evidence he left behind. That would be more like watching the director's cut with explanatory notes straight from the horse's mouth. We'd have a definitive statement on the subject that dispelled all the flowery tripe of the artsy-fartsy pundits, or the confounding switchbacks in our own thinking. What we need is a confession from God, a self-disclosure that laid out on the table what we could never get to ourselves. We need a word.
It seems to me, what we need is an active witness from the One behind it all-- a personal commentary on the evidence he left behind. That would be more like watching the director's cut with explanatory notes straight from the horse's mouth. We'd have a definitive statement on the subject that dispelled all the flowery tripe of the artsy-fartsy pundits, or the confounding switchbacks in our own thinking. What we need is a confession from God, a self-disclosure that laid out on the table what we could never get to ourselves. We need a word.
We stand no chance whatsoever of knowing anything about God with any certainty apart from that. And even with that, it won't be enough.
4 comments:
I believe, even in eternity, that we will never be able to grasp the infinite God nor will we ever understand His ways or come close to His knowledge. That is why He is God and that is why I am grateful to Him for revealing His love to us in His Son (John 20:30-31; 2 Timothy 3:15-17).
Roy,
Just to play Devil's advocate: how do you see 1 Corinthians 13:12; 1 John 3:2; John 17:22-26 playing into your view concerning eternity?
I think Ephesians 3:14-20 is worth a close examination. Read literally, Paul is praying that the Ephesians receive a direct revelation of God's Love for them that seems to require that one's "Inner Man" be strengthened by the Spirit, and which results in us being "filled with all the fullness of God." In a sense, God has to "reengineer" our minds, and maybe our physical brains to handle this revelation. Lest his readers (and us) doubt that such a thing will be done for us, Paul points out that God is able to do "exceeding abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us." One wonders if Jesus spent the 40 days in the wilderness for the sole purpose of grasping the revelation that He was God's Beloved Son (and loved accordingly). Such a revelation of love must have triggered the ability to work the miraculous, and thus accounts for the nature of two of the three wilderness temptations!
Here's the real problem: Ephesians 3:20 virutally guarantees that whenever God "cuts loose" and really does something as extraordinary as a direct disclosure of His love or some other aspect of himself, it will be bigger than our ability to grasp it. What do we do when faced with something we don't understand? What do "heresy hunters" and "truth monitors" do when confronted with something claimed to come from God that they don't understand because, by coming from God, it is bigger than their understanding? They do the same thing the pharisees did with Jesus. They will play it safe and call it "self-deception", or "of the devil" if any real power is deployed.
Gerald,
Thanks for the comment. I didn't know what to say in response, so I "saved" it for later, then it slipped my mind. Sorry for such a late reply.
The initial paragraph is very speculative. I don't think there is anyway for anyone else to "amen" it, since it doesn't naturally arise out of what is revealed in scripture.
As for the second paragraph, I can agree that displays of power make people nervous, especially those that have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Would you not agree that any display of power or revelation should fall within the framework of what is already revealed in scripture?
Post a Comment