freeborn | ελεύθερος on Nostr: I am relieved to hear that you agree that God is, in himself, incomprehensible. That ...

I am relieved to hear that you agree that God is, in himself, incomprehensible. That was the point of my original post. Mysteries should not be treated as puzzles. Perhaps I should have left out the words "the doctrine of" because that appears to be the sticking point here. But my point remains.

@

quoting nevent1q…0fu6

I can agree with Deut. 29:29. Just because a mystery can be articulated in doctrinal propositions does not mean it is `comprehensible` in the technical sense. I'll stick with the Reformers, and the Post-Reformation fathers, like Owen. I'm not particularly interested in reviving the Clark-Van Til controversy over social media. Van Til was right: analogical knowledge does not shut us up to skepticism (per Clark) and it also does not claim univocicity (which would be to claim infinity for a created mind). Thanks for the engagement.

The mystery behind the doctrine is, in itself, incomprehensible. That is not to say that we cannot arrive at knowable propositions. In attempting to reconcile propositions that, to our finite mind, seem incompatible, we turn mysteries into puzzles. We must instead embrace our finitude and bask in the wonder of God's transcendence.

Lest we continue this exercise in miscommunication--if you agree with what is stated and defended (better than I have done) in those articles I linked, then we are in friendly agreement and we need not proceed. If you don't, we probably won't via this medium, so again we can simply let this rest.