Colossians 1:9-14, Part 9

J. H. Thornwell concludes his lecture on "The Nature and Limits of Our Knowledge of God" as follows:

Our ignorance of the Infinite is the true solution of the most perplexing problems which encounter us at every step in the study of Divine truth. We have gained a great point when we have found out that they are really insoluble – that they contain one element which we cannot understand, and without which the whole must remain an inexplicable mystery. The doctrines of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Prescience of God and the Liberty of Man, the Permission of the Fall, the Propagation of Original Sin, the Workings of Efficacious Grace, all these are facts which are clearly taught; as facts they can be readily accepted, but they defy all efforts to reduce them to science.

He seems to say that if we cannot "reduce them to science," then they are "inexplicable." Is he indeed asserting this relationship? Is something either "science" or else inexplicable? Why? And what does he mean by "science"? Why should we reduce anything to "science"? We will not spend time on these questions. At this point, we need only to notice that he calls those doctrines he listed "inexplicable," and that they carry problems that are "insoluble."

First, the "problems" with all of these doctrines have been conclusively solved, often just by pointing out that there were no problems in the first place – they were invented by human tradition and philosophy. If Thornwell does not know or refuses to accept these solutions, that is his fault. But when he proposes that "ignorance" is the "solution" to all these problems, then we must protest that all of Scripture is against him both in its pattern and content. Scripture does not use ignorance as an excuse for believers or a defense against unbelievers. It does not admit to any internal incoherence, and it does not then appeal to either God's infinitude or man's finitude to "solve" the problem. When we follow Thornwell, who represents only one of many like him, we introduce confusion and false humility into Christians, and rather than exalting the truth of the gospel before unbelievers, we confirm them in their disbelief and irreverence.

In fact, to begin our consideration of the doctrine of God with his incomprehensibility, and to introduce pessimism for believers, is to model the pagan disposition to suppress the knowledge of God, perhaps even out of a similar motive, that is, to leave room for disbelief, disagreement, and disobedience against him. The difference is the starting point for the denial – unbelievers deny God at an earlier point – but the principle is identical. And indeed we find that God's incomprehensibility is often used as an excuse to reject God's answers to a number of doctrinal questions.

To insist that we cannot understand something when God has repeatedly explained it and answered all questions about it – for example, when it comes to the "problem" of evil – is just a polite way of saying that we reject God's revelation on the matter. It is an attempt to think like the devil but speak like a saint. And it is in this way that teachings on the incomprehensibility of God and the finitude of the human mind are, more often than not, used to display false humility and to disguise gross rebellion against God's explicit and thorough revelation.

Suppose there is a child whose parents understand how he processes information and provide him with detailed explanations and instructions, but he plugs up his ears and screams, "No! No! No! I do not understand! You are so wise and mature, so far beyond me, but I am just a child. I cannot understand what you are saying." There is no humility here; rather, he mocks his parents and despises their authority. He is an irksome and disobedient child who requires correction and discipline.

Now, is God infinitely greater than human parents, so that he is indeed too far beyond our grasp? But he is also infinitely more knowledgeable of the human mind, infinitely more capable of explaining himself, with an infinitely greater access to our souls by his Spirit. If we speak in faith and honesty, we will have to say that we can know God and his will much better than we can know our human parents. This may still not be very much, compared to all that there is to know about an infinite being. We can never know all of him, but we know our parents even less.

Paul writes, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Corinthians 2:11-12). In ourselves, we have access to neither the mind of man nor the mind of God, but God has revealed his mind (not the mind of other men) to us by his Spirit. Scripture is consistently optimistic about the Christians' ability to know God. The traditional doctrine of God's incomprehensibility that teaches the opposite is outright damnable.

Critics might now say, "Ah, now he claims to have all the answers." Based on the pattern of their previous objections, we should anticipate this as a possible reaction. But this response would show once again how obsessed they are with personalities and with themselves. How much a particular Christian knows is irrelevant to a proper formulation of the doctrine. Our main concern has been the biblical position, or the principle of the issue. Also, throughout our discussion we have made it clear that this biblical optimism is applied to all Christians, although it is withheld from those who remain in unbelief. On the other hand, our critics and the theologians that they follow wish to impose their own limitations upon all believers, and even upon the content of God's Word and the power of God's Spirit.