Theophilus argues that the Invisible God is seen through His works. He writes, "For as the soul in man is not seen, being invisible to man, but is perceived through the motion of the body, so God cannot indeed be seen by human eyes, but is beheld and perceived through His providence and works." Here he pauses to examine the wind, being only perceivable by the effects thereof. He closes saying, "As, therefore, the seed of the pomegranate, dwelling inside, cannot see what is outside the rind, itself being within; so neither can man, who along with the whole creation is enclosed by the hand of God, behold God….any earthly king is believed to exist, even though he be not seen by all, for he is recognised by his laws and ordinances, and authorities, and forces and statues; and are you unwilling that God should be recognised by His works and mighty deeds?"
Friday, March 28, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008

Sigmund Freud maintained that what people call “God” is simply their wishful thinking projected outside themselves. People believe in God because deep down they want to; they invent God in the way that a child invents an imaginary playmate.
But of course this argument runs both ways. We can just as easily turn Freud's argument back on Freud himself and say that people do not believe in God because they (Freud as well) do not want to or do not dare to; they find it convenient not to have God around and therefore they invent God’s absence the way a child wishes away someone she doesn’t like.
He is not one fact among others, to be proven as a mathematical formula, or logical proposition which may be proven or disproved. He is neither the most probable way of explaining the observable datum of the Universe, nor is He a genetic memory.
He is the necessary ground of all facts and all prediction.
Origen (c 255) writes, “According to strict truth God is incomprehensible and incapable of being measured, for whatever the knowledge is that we are able to obtain about God, either by perception or by reflection, we must of necessity, believe that He is far better by many degrees than what we perceive Him to be.”
The Old Testament, however, begins with an a priori claim of His existence, and no argument in its favour, as evidenced by the assumptory statement, “In the beginning, God…” (Gen 1:1a)
In other Scriptural texts, as well, we have apparently preemptory statements to the question of God’s existence, such as, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8) This text suggests the finality of the existence of God. And again, in Job 32:8, we read, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
Hebrews 11:3 reminds us that “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” So that in this sense, we are not enjoined with the necessity of proving the existence of God, but realising that He exists interdependent upon Himself alone.

The Westminster also states, “God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.” (Emphasis added.)
The London Baptist further states that God’s “subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but Himself…”
Theophilus writes (c. 163–182) that it is not necessary to understand God in order for Him to exist, nor is it possible. Since in glory, “He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable.” He must exist, argues Theophilus, for we can comprehend Him, but not what or who He truly is in essence, He being of too great a mind and existence Himself for our minds to comprehend. “For if I say He is Light,” he argues, “I name but His own work; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of his offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I am mentioning His activity; if Providence, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being Judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I say all.”
Tertullian, also professes, (c. 207), “God, moreover, is as independent a Beginning and End, as He is of Time.”
Monday, January 28, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A Beautiful Collection of Thoughts from Douglas Wilson

And hear ancestral Muses cry, The wine dark sea and tumbling sky.


Many proud moderns still do not like to admit their complete dependence on Christ, and will certainly resent it when the glory of culture is attributed to Him. But splendid pagan culture is really no longer a possibility -- the Muses are gone. Any culture which desires beauty now must have the beauty of holiness.
Modern man has not had beauty taken away from him; but in order to have beauty, it must now be in the context of Christian culture. Unbelievers will produce works of great beauty, but they are dependent upon Christian culture as they do so. Turning from our Lord Christ means turning from the only fountainhead of true aesthetic wonder.
"Homer once sang of his Hellenes and Trojans
and Vergil composed verse about the descendants of Romulus;
Let us sing about the kindly deeds of the King of Heaven
whom the world never ceases joyously to praise.
Homer and Vergil took pleasure in speaking aout
the flames that brought
sudden destruction to Troy and about the struggles of their heroes,
but our delight is to sing of Christ
drenched in blood after vanquishing the prince of this world.
They were both learned in how to compose falsehoods
with an appearance of truth and how to deceive an Arcadian verse;
we prefer to sing hymns of fine praise
to the power of the Father and His true wisdom.
Let us therefore hold the supreme victories of Christ
as brilliant stars in our minds.
Behold, the four corners of the world are clasped by
the wooden cross."
- John Scotus (AD 810-877)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Suffering To Be Defrauded
The Art Of Brokenness
1Corinthians 6: (6) "But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. (7) Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?"
Recently, my wife was in a car wreck. The lady who hit her took the blame and filled the police report out to that effect. Later, she changed her story, blaming it on my wife, and trying to steer clear of any fault.
My initial reaction is to grow angry and "demand my rights!" But then, the Lord brought this text to mind. WHY DO YE NOT RATHER SUFFER YOURSELVES TO BE DEFRAUDED? Yes, primarily, I know that Paul was speaking to believers, however, there is a truth here which we as Christians miss:
The "statements" that we hear made in Christianity today, do not match up with those of Christ, or Paul. For instance...
1. "That's not fair!" (Us)
2. "I demand my rights!" (Us)
3. "Well, you know me; I speak my mind." (Us)
Contrast...
1. "For I am meek and lowly in heart." (Christ)
2. "Suffer yourselves to be defrauded." (Paul)
3. "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth" (Speaking of Christ)
OUCH!
Just how "Christian" are our attitudes? Why do we always think we have to be the one's who are "right?" Why must we have the final say? Why must we have it our way? Did Paul, James, John, or Christ?
Obviously, the answer is no.
I think an Historical look at Christianity would tell us that the Gospel might well be described as a story about "the Broken Lover." Here is a God, willing to give up His Son, for the ungodly.
Here is a story about a Divine Son, willing to give up his Divinity, willing to give up his Son-hood, willing to be rejected of His Father, willing to forsake all that is truly beautiful and wonderful, willing to be subjected to ridicule and scorn, and final crucifixion and death.
As C. S. Lewis said of Christianity, "everywhere, it is the concept of the Greater into the Smaller...More into less."
Christ, condescending to us.
So, what about us? When our first instinct is to get "fired-up" about something...will we remember the words of Paul, and allow ourselves to be wronged?
Or, will we stand up and say, "Not on your life! I'm a Christian, and Jesus promised me rights!"
Is that what He came to earth to do? To enable our rights?
Or, was it that whole, seek and save that which was lost, thing?
Oh well; I have to go write a scathing email to the Walmart Customer Service department because I stood in line for two hours today.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Here's a shout-out to my sister-site The Prof Tells All
It's a bit of a break from the usual theological conundrums I tend to work myself into. A bit of java, a bit of economics, a bit of theology, and just a pinch of irregular how-did-this-get-in-here, it makes for a smooth read. I co-author it, so check it out, and enjoy!