The Knowability of God, part II

Listen Now

Read the Sermon

Transcript

Now, tonight we really have a lot of ground to cover, but I’m not going to hurry. Because I think it’s important to get these things and if we do happen to fall behind one night I don’t think the world will stop because of that. So let me just for the sake of one or two of you who may not have been here before, review for you. And review a little bit of what we went through last time too.

In our first three studies we have tried to set forth this, that theology, or the science of things divine – theos, logos — is possible, is necessary and is regulated by inductive reasoning. Then we talked about the existence of God. And we tried to show that the existence of God is known by our intuition. That is, the proofs of the existence of God are first of all intuitive. We have an innate sense of the knowledge of God within our hearts, a sense of God. We talked about the innate knowledge of the senses and of the intellect and of the moral nature and we pointed out that it was perfectly natural for us to believe in God, because that idea has been planted in our hearts by God. Since last time I noticed a citation or quotation by Albert Einstein, which is interesting in this life. He said, “Something deeply hidden had to be behind things.” And I think that is very interesting for a man who is certainly not a Christian.

And also in one of the periodicals that I take there was a quotation again of Svetlana Stalin; and many of you have seen this quotation but I’ll read it again. She said, “I was brought up in a fAMily where there never was any talk about God.” Although as I remember, Stalin himself had at one time studied for the priesthood, “but there was no talk about God,” she said. “But when I became a grown up person, I found that it was impossible to exist without God in one’s heart. I came to the conclusion myself without anybody’s help or preaching. But that was a great change because since that moment the main dogmas of communism lost their significance for me.” I think that is an illustration at least, though I’m not trying to vouch for the genuiness of Svetlana Stalin’s experience, but it is just what one would say about the intuition in God. This of course does not say that she’s a Christian. The knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that one is a Christian. The heathen, that is anyone who is not a Christian, the heathen have the knowledge of God in their hearts but they are not Christian.

Then we talk about the rational truths of the existence of God and we don’t have time to consider them again but have time to consider them again but you remember we discussed the cosmological proof, the teleological proof, the moral proof and the ontological proof. And of course some of us got confused but most of us are very much more enlightened now than we’ve ever been and I’m not going to ask you how many of you have used the ontological proof in discussion with anyone yet. But I hope that the truths that are represented by these arguments will at least come home to you. I tried to point out to you as we begin these things that you cannot prove the existence of God by the rational proofs. You can only point Christians; at least give them some assurance that the faith that what they do have is a rational faith. In the final analysis it is only God who can convince us of the truth of Christianity and of the word of God.

Now last time we began the study of the Knowability of God. And this is the outline that we began to discuss and we first of all began to discuss the incomprehensibility of God. Isn’t that a long word? When I get near the end of that word I wonder if I hadn’t put two or three more syllables in than it ought to have. Incomprehensibility of God, and then:

A. Man’s Sin

B. God’s Infinity

I’ll just read through this outline and we’ll go back and pick it up.

II. The Knowability of God

A. The Logical Evidence

B. The Scriptural Evidence

I. Psalms 76:1

II. John 17:3

— Just two of many passages —

And then Roman II, The Method of Knowing God.

I didn’t give you these points last time.

The Way of Negation, Imminent Causality

A. It is a law of nature

B. Our moral nature demands it

C. Our spiritual nature — or as the Theologians like to put it — our religious nature demands it

Now we begin by discussing the incomprehensibility of God and it might seem strange when we’re talking about the knowability of God to speak of his incomprehensibility, but the force of the incomprehensibility of God doctrine is simply this: that it is impossible to know God completely. In other words, there is a sense that God is incomprehensible to the human mind.

And one of the reasons for it is man’s sin. And we looked at Ephesians chapter 4, verse 18 AMong other passages and we saw from this passage as well as 1 Corinthians chapter 2 that it is impossible for us to know God in the full sense because we have been alienated from God by sin and because of sin we incapacitated. We do not even have the Holy Spirit naturally. The one who has written the word of God, who knows completely the things of God and so our sin as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden makes God ultimately incomprehensible for us. And in this present state, I think it is quite obvious that this is something that we do have to believe.

The next thing is related to it in a different way. God is incomprehensible because of his infinity. And I believe, as I said to you last time, that there is a sense in which we should never know God. He will always be incomprehensible to some degree to us and that when we get to heaven we shall not know him completely. Now of course this does not mean we shall not know him but we shall not know him completely.

Now we turned to Job chapter 11, I think and verse 7. And I think it would be good for us to turn there again tonight at this point. So will you turn with me to Job chapter 11, verse 7. That’s in the Old Testament; Job, Psalms. Job Chapter 11, verse 7,

“Canst thou by searching find out God, canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?”

Now notice those words, “Unto perfection,” and of course this rhetorical question expects the answer, “no.” We cannot know God unto perfection. So God is, because of his infinity, incomprehensible to us. We cannot ever comprehend – completely — God so that we control him. Well now lest we go too far on the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God.

We want to talk now about the knowability of God, and first of all, the logical evidence for the knowability of God. We readily acknowledge that God is past finding out unto perfection. If we were to know him completely, we would have to know his essence, that is, what he is in himself, in his very deepest being. We would have to know all of his attributes; that is, we would have to know every way in which his being expresses itself; we would have to know completely his glory — in other words. We’d have to know his righteousness, his justice, his love, his mercy, his goodness — everything else. We would have to know these things completely. Not only that but we would have to know the relationship between these attributes and the relationship between his being, his attributes and men and his creation. So I think it is obvious to us that we can never really know God to perfection. But that does not mean that we cannot know God.

So let me consider this question logically first of all. Why we acknowledge then that God cannot be comprehended? As theologians we are going to say that he can be apprehended. He may be touched with the finger, in case of our Lord, although he may not be grasped or embraced in his fullness — just to use a figure of speech.

Let’s analyze this by looking at ourselves. We know we think, some of us think. We know we perceive. We know we act but we do not really know how the mind operates, do we? I think everyone of us would have to agree that there is a sense in which we really do not completely understand ourselves but nevertheless we know ourselves. I would not say that I do not know myself. Sometimes I might say that, I might do something that’s incomprehensible to me, but I know Lewis Johnson. And you know yourself and so it’s possible to really know someone but at the same time to not completely comprehend that person.

I know for example some of you or most of you in this auditorium, but I do not comprehend you completely. I know others but I would not at all say I know you completely. You are really incomprehensible to me, but I’m sure I know you. And so while God is incomprehensible to us it is nevertheless true that he is knowable and just as surely as we know ourselves who are also incomprehensible to ourselves in a sense, we know God.

We can know the ways in which God expresses his self toward us. For example we can know some of his attributes. We can know he loves us. We can know he has mercy upon us. We can know he cares for us. We can know the things he has done for us. We can know that he has given Jesus Christ for us, and that is the expression of his character. And we know him in this sense, we have believed in him. So there is a sense then in which we cannot know his essence but we can know the ways in which he acts toward us.

Now let me stop for a minute and reiterate something I said the other night. And that is this, when Moses; remember was called by God to deliver Israel out of the land of Egypt. In the third chapter of the book of Exodus he asked God a question. He said, “Now they are going to ask me who has sent me and so what is your name?” And you remember God said to Moses, “You tell Israel that I AM has sent you.” And in the course of that conversation he defines himself for Moses as, I AM that I AM. We would say I AM who I AM. In other words it is really impossible for God to express himself to men, so that we can comprehend him and his name.

Now remember in ancient times a name meant something. The names in the Old Testament are almost always related to the character of the person. I’ve often wondered why that’s true, perhaps it’s because some of the names were given after character was manifested. Perhaps, they were guided more by the spirit, I don’t know. But almost all of the Old Testament characters had names that reflected their character. Perhaps they had other names too. As Isaiah, his name was Asariah; his name was Isaiah. One means God is our strength; the other means God is our helper. And so in the sense in which he reflected these things that was his name. So the name was designed to represent the character. If you see Isaiah, the salvation of God and he was the messenger of the salvation of God.

Now we don’t name people like that today. We call somebody Robert or John, well John of course is a biblical name and it means “grace or gift.” And Jonathan in the Old Testament was gift of God. But we use names; which really to us today don’t mean anything. For example my name is Lewis, and as I’ve said to some of you as I understand it the meaning of that name is “mighty warrior,” – aha, and I thought you would laugh [laughter] because I’m going to say that my name has no bearing whatsoever to my character.

Now you see in the Old Testament when God spoke of his name, he was speaking of his essential being. And he said to Moses, “I AM.” In other words, I AM the self-existent one, I AM the one who lives forever, I never had a beginning I never had an end, I AM. So whenever we try to define God there is no way, which we can do it. There is no absolute definition of God because the minute we try to define him by categories that we use we have limited him and thus made him not an infinite person. So we can never define God absolutely.

But he may relate himself to us in a relative way. And Moses did not stop with, I AM that I AM, but he listened and God then gave him a relative definition of himself. And you remember he said, “I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.” So that it is in the relative sense that I may be known. I AM incomprehensible in my absolute character in my essence. But I AM knowable as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac the God of Jacob. I may relate myself to you in covenant form. And that is what he has done. So we can say that God is incomprehensible in his essence but as he relates himself to us in his attributes then he is to that extent knowable.

And it is logical that as we are incomprehensible and yet may be known to one another in the way in which we act toward one another, so God is incomprehensible in his essence. What he is essentially, theologians, you want some of these words don’t you? You want to take these home with you. As we cannot know God in his quid, you Latin students, you remember that, in what he is but he may be known in the ways in which he manifests himself to us. His characteristics, quails — you remember what that means in Latin – of such a sort.

Now that’s logical but let’s look at a scriptural verse or two because in the final analysis most of us here would want to be sure that what we are saying is logical, is also scriptural. And so let’s turn to Psalm 76, verse 1 and let’s look at a passage in which we have it clearly stated that God is knowable. Psalm 76:1, “Now the Psalmist writes, “In Judah is God known. His name is great in Israel.”

Now of course when he says his name is great, by the way, that means his relative definition. As he is to them, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of Israel, the one who has related himself to them by covenant which will ultimately be sealed by the blood of Christ. In Judah, is God known, not completely; for he is incomprehensible in Judah but he is knowable in a relative way.

Now let’s turn to John chapter 17, verse 3. This verse is one of the great verses of the upper room discourse; in fact it’s one of the great verses of the Gospel of John. When you start talking about great verses, pretty soon you’re saying this is one of the great verses of the New Testament or the Bible and this really is a great verse. Jesus is praying and we read in verse 2, “As Thou hast given him power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given him. And this is life eternal that they might know Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.”

We often think of eternal life as everlasting existence. But that of course is not the biblical eternal life. Everyone exists forever. Even those who have rejected the God of Israel and even those who reject the God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, they are the same God of course. Even those who reject him live forever. They live forever in conscience, eternal judgment and punishment, so the Scriptures say. So there is a sense in which everybody lives forever.

But when the Bible speaks of eternal life, it means more than everlasting existence. It means everlasting existence in the knowledge of the true God. It means the knowledge that comes when we come to know the God who exists eternally. It’s the knowledge of the God who has given Jesus Christ to die for us, to be our substitute, the one who has risen from the dead. Conqueror over death in Hades and who is at the right hand of the Father, who lives to make intercession for the saints, who is coming again to take those who have believed in him to himself, who is coming to establish his kingdom, who ultimately throughout all eternity is the everlasting God, ever adored and ever to be worshipped. It is the knowledge of this God that is eternal life. And if we do not have eternal life, we do not know him. If we have eternal life we know this person. We do not know him completely but we know him. So I have through Jesus Christ the real knowledge of God, but it is not complete. So the Scriptures then, as well as logic, support the knowability of God.

Now let’s move on to the method of knowing God. And I’m going to have to explain something here because I know these words don’t mean much to you without explanation. The ancient students of the doctrine of the knowability of God used to say that God is known by way of negation, by way of imminence and by way of causality. And what they meant was this; God is known by way of negation. Well you see, we cannot really know God completely so we have to settle for this. We have to settle for saying that he does not have any limitations such as man has. So we say of him that he has no limitation such as we have. So he is known by way of negation. We do not attribute to him the limitations of man.

Then he is known by imminence; that is, we attribute to him to the infinite degree, all of the excellences of human nature. If we may know, he knows completely, he is omnipotent, if we have power, he has all power, if we may be present here, he may be present everywhere. And so he is omnipotent, he is omniscient, he is omnipresent, so that all of the excellences that belong to us as a creature in ourselves, even apart from sin, we ascribe to him in their completeness, this we are limited to this kind of language.

And then finally he is known by way of causality. Since he is the cause of everything then as we see God working in human affairs. For example, if we see his power, then since he is the cause of power, then we attribute to him all power. If we see working in this scene in which we are other of his attributes, which is love or, try to think of another one now — sometimes your mind goes blank. Mine goes blank very often [laughter], but anyways the point is, as God reveals himself to men in his actions, and we see the effects of these actions, for example his judgment, then since he is the cause of all, we ascribe to him all of these attributes in their greatest degree.

So by way of negation he does not have our limitation, by way of imminence we ascribe to him the perfections of everything that we see, and causality all of the influences that are at work in human existence we ascribe in their ultimate degree to him – in this way we may know him – and that is how we know, him apart from the Scriptures.

Now I want to support this briefly by pointing out, that this is a law of nature. And what I mean by this is that this method of ascribing to God, the excellences, the lack of limitation, that we do; this method is a method that even men who have no contact with the God of the Scriptures acknowledge. For example, in fetishism, that is the worship of God by means of fetishes (we know this in the heart of some of the heathen lands), in fetishism always the worshiper regards his life as belonging to the object hat he worships. In other words when he bows down before an idol, he attributes to the idol his life. He recognizes that he has a derived life. And so by a law of nature we recognize that what is true of us is ultimately true of God, but true of him in the exalted sense, for we belong to him. That’s part of our being. It’s something that God has planted within us. It’s one of those intuitive things that we were talking about.

Secondly, our moral nature demands that we approach, that we understand God in this way. For example, our moral nature thinks of a God with a person. We think of a person who knows, who wills, who acts. That is the way we think of God. And because we do think of God that way then if we know anything, if we can know anything, then he must be that way. Of course if he is not that way then we cannot know anything. And so there is no point in talking about anything else. But if our senses are reliable that is the way in which we know him. And if our moral nature recognizes that he’s a person who knows, who wills and who acts, so must he be.

Thirdly, our spiritual nature demands it. This is essentially the same argument. But our spiritual nature demands a personal God. When we think of God we think of a person who will hear our prayer. Who will listen to our confession. Who will pay attention to the praise that we render to him.

Paul Tillich, one of our modern day theologians, speaks of God as “the ground of our being.” But nobody wants to go around and worship the ground of being does he? We don’t bow down before God on our knees and say, “O dear ground of being.” We naturally think of a person who will hear prayer, who will listen to our confessions, who will hear praises. We do not get down on our knees and thank the law of gravity for anything. In other words, basic to our spiritual nature is the concept that there is a personal God.

Now I think if we have a spiritual nature at all and if we can know anything at all then God must be like that. If we say, “He’s not like that,” then we can never know anything. And so there’s no use to talk about knowing anything. So if that is the way that we naturally think. And I think this is universal among men, with exception. Often times you will find men who want to deny this and deny it for a particular reason. But generally this knowledge is universal and necessary and yes it must be, if we know anything.

Now I’d like to add another thing.

Capital D: The Argument From Nature Agreed.

Now what I want you to do at this point is to turn with me to Psalm 19, verses 1 through 6. [Repeat] Psalm 19, verses 1 through 6. Let’s read these verses because in these verses we have one of the great passages on the natural revelation of God.

“The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day utters his speech and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber and rejoices like a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven and his psychic unto the ends of it and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.”

Now we’re talking about the knowability of God. And you will notice that in this revelation that we have of God in nature that the works of nature manifest a God who apparently have a nature like ours. For we can see in God’s creation, his intelligence, we can see his power, we can see his will we can see his moral excellence. Of course it’s somewhat clouded, we can see some things that make us wonder about God. We can see for example, lightening strikes someone, we might wonder if God is love. Or when we see a mighty rain storm that causes a flood and people are swept away and drowned or what other catastrophes take place, but ordinarily as we look at God’s creation we see evidence he’s a person; an intelligent person. He has a will and he cares for his creatures. And the argument from this is found in the word of God, so that from nature, we have agreement. The Scriptures present such a God as the argument from causality, limitation, imminence suggests.

Let me read you a quotation; “We are self-conscious, so is God; we are spirits, so is he; we are voluntary agents, so is God; we have a moral nature, miserably defaced indeed, God has moral excellence in infinite perfection; we are persons, so is God.” All this the scriptures declare to be true. The great primal revelation of God is that the I AM, the personal God. All the names and titles given to him, all the attributes ascribed to him, all the works attributed to him are revelations to what he truly is. He is the Eloyhim, the mighty one, the Holy one, the omnipresent spirit, he is the Creator, the preserver, the governor of all things, he is our Father, he is the hearer of prayer, the giver of all good, he feeds the young raven, he clothes the plowers of the field, he is love and so on.

And finally, God’s Manifestation in Christ Agrees. God is known by way of negation, by way of imminence, by way of causality and all of these the great God’s manifestation in Christ agreed, because when we look at Jesus Christ we have the ultimate revelation of what God is really like. And in him we see a person who has no limitation such as you and I have. We see all of the perfection of the divine character in the Son of God. At the same time we see all of the manifestations of the acts of God in they’re perfections too. And we see expressed in him all of the things that we know that we have in they’re fullest degree. If we love, he loves to the infinite degree. If we show mercy, he shows mercy to the infinite degree, and so on. So that finally, God’s revelation of himself in Christ indicates that we may know God by means of imminence, by means of negation and by means of causality.

You know sometimes we fail to remember that God has reveled to us himself in Jesus Christ. And he has revealed to us himself in such a perfect way that when we look at Jesus Christ we’ve seen God as he really is. And we shall never need to see the Father in his essence if we have really comprehended our Lord Jesus Christ. And furthermore, the fact that Jesus Christ has come and has come as the revealer of God is evidence in the final sense too that he is God himself, because no one can reveal God who is not God himself in the final analysis.

If our Lord Jesus were not God, we could never really be sure that God did love us. A prophet may tell us that. An apostle may tell us that. But we can never really be sure until God himself told us that. And so when Jesus Christ came, he came not just as a man with a message from God, not as a prophet, not as an apostle, but he came as the Son of God. So that we could never say of him when he said, “God loves you, God desires to save you,” we could never say to him, “I know that’s what you say, but does God really say it,” because he was God and in the manifestation of God, we may know God.

Now we’re going to move on and try to make a start in the subject revelation or, “Has man a word from God?” And we’re going to put another little outline on the board for you so that you can at least take some notes home that you can do a little study over. And first of all, “The necessity of special revelation.”

Now remember when we talk about revelation, we talk about two kinds of revelation primarily. We talk about special revelation and we talk about general revelation. Now general revelation is revelation of God in, well let’s say, history. Of the knowledge of God of history is equivocal. You never can really know exactly what the make of God is from history. There have been many attempts by man to show that we can read history and we can understand God. Perhaps one of the best is Herbert Butterfield’s Christianity in History, and in it he points out that it’s very reasonable to perceive judgment in human history. It’s very logical to perceive the love of God in human history. We can see many evidences of the manifestation of the character of God in human history. But you can never really from history come to the Christian faith. Someone once said concerning Waterloo, “Waterloo was God.” Well, they recognized in this battle they thought that is was the hand of God that protected, what they thought was enslavement for Europe under Napoleon. I’m quite sure you’ve realized that probably it was the British who said Waterloo was God. I’m not sure however that a French man would have given the same interpretation to that event. But they recognize at least that in history there is a revelation of God.

By the way, one of the greatest students of history was the German, Von Ranke, and anyone who has ever studied history very much will know that Von Ranke was really one of the great students of history and especially the history of ideas and the philosophy of history. And Von Ranke said this one time, he said, “That when you study history and study all of the events of history you come to the conclusion that after you have analyzed everything, that there is to know about history that deep down underneath there is a residuum that you cannot explain,” and he said that “Furthermore that you get the impression that there is something almost Satanic in history.” I think if we can know some things about God in history we can also know some things about God from conscience. Our conscience tells us certain things about God; we know that.

Then also we can know God from providence. We can know certain things about him. Again the voice of providence is not perfectly clear.

And we can know God in nature. Now Paul in Romans chapter 1, verses 20 and 21 tells us some things about the revelation of God in nature. And so will you turn there for just a moment while I remind you of some things you probably already know from the study of God’s word, Romans chapter 1, verse 20 and 21. While your finding Romans 1 let me read beginning with verse 18 where Paul states, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth and unrighteousness because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen.” Notice that, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”

In other words, from God’s natural creation we may understand some invisible things about God and he defines them. He says, “His eternal power and God head.” Now that word does not mean God-head; that means divinity. It is the Greek word theios, now I don’t have to put it on the board for you. You just have to take my word for it. But the word for God head is theotes that means deity. Theios means divinity, the quality of deity. You could not for example look at God’s creation and say there is a Father, a Son and a Spirit. In spite of the fact that Moody Science film has noticed the fact that there is an interesting trinity in our creation, we could never know that. Most of us don’t have the facilities to discover things like that, but Paul is not stating that we can know the trinity from nature.

We can know his eternal power and his divinity, that is, that he is a God who is all-powerful. We can look at Niagara Falls for example and know that God is powerful or we can look at the mountains that he has erected and know that he is powerful. We can look at his creation and know these things. We can know his eternal power and know his divinity that he is God. By the way have you noticed that men who do not know anything about the Bible, who do not claim to know anything about the Bible, speak of God as the Supreme Being? Now you know you never find that statement in the Scripture, that God is the Supreme Being. And yet men call him the Supreme Being. Where did they get that idea? Well they got it just from looking at nature. They saw that the person responsible for this was a being and he was supreme. And it’s almost the exact equivalent of Paul’s statement, his eternal power and his divinity, that is that he is the Supreme Being.

But now this general revelation, this general revelation in history, in conscience, in providence, in nature is a revelation from which we could never know anything more about God than that he is a supreme being.

Now if we all were individuals who had never sinned, if we had never fallen, if we didn’t have any sense of need, if we didn’t know if we needed to be reconciled to God, then of course a revelation addressed to us as a man would give us some information that would be significant for us, but unfortunately men have already by sin and plunged into the depth of separation from God. They know that, they feel that, if they have any spiritual sensibility and they know that something must be done in order that this reconciliation between man and God, of man to God should be accomplished. And so we need something more than general revelation. We need more, something more than history, something more than providence, something more than conscience, something more than nature. We need another volume of revelation.

And that we have in special revelation. If general revelation is addressed to man as a man, special revelation in the word of God is addressed to man as a sinner.

Now from God’s revelation of himself in nature we can know he’s a supreme being. But from his revelation of himself in the word of God, we can know that he is a being who has loved man and who has provided a way of access to man into the very presence of God. And that access is by the cross, for it is here that the Son of God taking our sins upon him self or the penalty of that sin to the fullest and made it possible for a holy God, who had his holiness satisfied in the gift of his own son, and as the judgment of God was meaded out for sin it was meaded out upon him.

And because he is a God of love and desires that men come to him, now as a result of this he is free to extend salvation to all who will simply believe. But it is in the word of God, God’s special revelation that we learn this necessary truth. So God’s book of Revelation has two volumes; volume 1, his revelation of himself generally; in history, conscience, providence, nature; volume 2, his revelation of himself in the Scripture. In the one we may learn that he is a supreme being. In the second volume, we learn that he is a just God and a Savior as Isaiah puts it, “A God who has offered by the gift of his son, a sacrifice which restores us to fellowship with God.”

The next time we’re going to take up the reasons why we have to have this special revelation of God. And I want to take it up logically as well as from the standpoint of the scripture. So we’re falling a little behind, but I think it’s necessary. I sensed that I was going so fast that some of you were not catching on there. And I think that from now on, see I’m trying to keep you coming, from now on I think its going to be much easier because we’re going to be talking about revelation, inspiration, the attributes of God. We’ll be turning more and more to the scriptures themselves, but we’re going to make you Theologians, we’re going to have to look at all of the truth. Not just that in the Bible but just that what we can see in man’s own basic character and being as well as in his creation. Let’s close with a word of prayer.

[Prayer] Father, we ask Thy blessing upon us and we pray that Thou will keep us diligent in the study of the scriptures and enable us Lord to think in the logical and reasonable way and above all under the direction of the Holy Spirit as we consider the revelation as Thou has given us in nature as well as in the Scripture. In Jesus name, Amen.