Colossians 1:9-14, Part 8

In his Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof precedes his discussion of the attributes of God with a chapter on "The Knowability of God." But he begins this chapter as follows: "The Christian Church confesses on the one hand that God is the Incomprehensible One, but also on the other hand, that He can be known and that knowledge of Him is an absolute requisite unto salvation." The statement is acceptable as far as it goes, although the emphasis here reverses the pattern that Scripture exhibits when it addresses believers, who constitute Berkhof's primary audience.

He continues, "It recognizes the force of Zophar's question, 'Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?' Job 11:7." But this is a misuse of the verse. Who says that we are attempting to know God "by searching"? We have already acknowledged 1 Corinthians 1:21: "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." We despair of knowing spiritual truth through our sinful efforts, but "God has revealed it to us by his Spirit" (1:10), rendering Job 11:7 practically irrelevant in this context. We do not even try to do what that verse tells us we cannot do.

Then, in his Reformed Dogmatics, Herman Bavinck begins his presentation of theology proper as follows:

Mystery is the lifeblood of dogmatics. To be sure, the term "mystery" in Scripture does not mean an abstract supernatural truth in the Roman Catholic sense. Yet Scripture is equally far removed from the idea that believers can grasp the revealed mysteries in a scientific sense. In truth, the knowledge that God has revealed of himself in nature and Scripture far surpasses human imagination and understanding. In that sense it is all mystery with which the science of dogmatics is concerned, for it does not deal with finite creatures, but from beginning to end looks past all creatures and focuses on the eternal and infinite One himself. From the very start of its labors, it faces the incomprehensible One.

This probably sounds sober and pious to many people, but it asserts the opposite of the biblical pattern and emphasis. At least he raises the relevant point of the believer's understanding of revelation, and not an attempt to know God through his own effort. But to our disappointment, he says that the Christian can barely understand what is revealed. On the contrary, Jesus says, "I…will tell you plainly about my Father" (John 16:25) and Paul says, "We have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16). There is zero support in Scripture for the idea that we cannot, even in principle, understand something that God has revealed to us.

In fact, rephrasing Bavinck's paragraph in the opposite direction yields an accurate summary of the biblical view:

Understanding is the lifeblood of dogmatics. Scripture is far removed from the idea that believers cannot grasp the fullness of revelation. In truth, the knowledge that God has revealed of himself in Scripture is well-suited to the redeemed intellect. In that sense it is all understanding with which the science of dogmatics is concerned, for it does not deal with the investigation of finite and sinful creatures, but from beginning to end looks past all creatures and focuses on the eternal and infinite One, who has revealed himself. From the very start of its labors, it faces the One who knows the human mind, and who has enlightened those who believe, and who has clearly revealed himself to them in a way that they can understand.

To begin the theological enterprise with ignorance and pessimism rather than a confident assertion of knowledge, even though we have received God's Word and God's Spirit, is to place ourselves in the position of the non-Christians. This is not humility, but an arrogant and rebellious denial of God's grace and of the work that he has performed in us.

The biblical pattern is to begin by God's knowability – not only that he is knowable, but that as Christians we do know him – and if it is to be mentioned at all, to conclude with God's incomprehensibility after all questions have been answered and resolved. The only acceptable reason to introduce this doctrine at the beginning is to subsume the topic under God's knowability, and then to use the doctrine to stress the fact that God has made himself knowable and known, especially to those who believe (1 Corinthians 1-2).

The biblical doctrine is that we cannot know God by our own efforts and methods, but we know only what he reveals to us – that is, what he tells us. We cannot know and should not speculate beyond what he has revealed. God has revealed an abundance of information to us, much more than what many theologians are willing to acknowledge. This amount of information is sufficient to constitute a complete worldview that answers all necessary questions, and in a way that is explicit and consistent, without apparent or actual contradictions.

Theologians often present a different view concerning the actual extent of this revelation and the nature of our understanding of it. My judgment is that the usual proposals are false, and usually blasphemous, at least by implication.

First, there is the premature assertion, vehemently defended, that God has not revealed anything beyond what they have grasped. So some questions are said to be beyond revelation as we have it, when the truth is that the questions are beyond their own understanding or that the answers are beyond their willingness to accept. All this talk about the "finite human mind" amounts to measuring divine revelation by our human finitude. It is the very opposite of humility.

Second, there is the violent insistence that revelation as we have it contains numerous paradoxes and contradictions, and that only additional revelation, which we will not receive in this present life, will provide the necessary materials for understanding and reconciliation. This denial of the clarity of revelation and the effect of redemption is so essential to the theological thinking and ecclesiastical posturing of some theologians that they would even strive to defrock ministers who insist that God's revelation is understandable and self-consistent.