They made the news in Greenville, SC, when the historic First Baptist Church opted to allow ordination and marriage of homosexuals (sorry, "LGBT"). The South Carolina Baptist Convention has asked the church to either recant or withdraw from the denomination. "But ... why?" some will ask. "They're baptists, aren't they?" Oh, it gets stickier than that. In their Report from the LGBT Discernment Team (yes, they had an "LGBT Discernment Team"), they affirmed, "In all facets of the life and ministry of our church, including but not limited to membership, baptism, ordination, marriage, teaching and committee/organizational leadership, First Baptist Greenville will not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity." Ironically, their footer is a mission statement which includes, "We believe in the authority of the Bible."
I'm not writing here about the particulars of that case. I'm writing about the problem of belief. Go to almost any church website, look up their "statement of faith" or whatever they might call it, and you will likely find a mostly orthodox statement of beliefs. This used to be a helpful method of determining whether or not you wanted to go to that church. I mean, if you concur with their statement of faith, go; if not, don't. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way anymore.
Using the example of the First Baptist Church of Greenville, their mission statement affirms the authority of the Bible, but their beliefs ignore it. No Scripture includes "not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity". All Scripture on subjects of "sexual orientation" classify anything other than sex between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage as the only righteous "sexual orientation", and in terms of "gender identity, only those specific gender roles for males and females that correspond to their sex are correct. But it didn't matter to the "LGBT Discernment Team". Or to the congregation (whose "consensus" was a factor in this decision). Or to the leadership of the church. So much for the Bible as authority. It was only authority if it coincides with "consensus" and how we feel about it. Otherwise, not so much.
I see this a lot ... churches with a commendable list of beliefs who apparently don't actually believe them. More than that, it is individuals who claim to believe things they don't actually believe. Baptists that believe in the authority of Scripture while denying Scripture in their policies. Open theists who believe that God doesn't know the future and still affirm the Omniscience of God. A Presbyterian church that "believes in God" whose pastor is a self-declared atheist. Even well-meaning, genuine Christians who affirm the Sovereignty of God but worry about tomorrow.
What do you believe? What you truly believe will always be demonstrated in what you do and not necessarily in what you say. Jesus recognized that when He said, "You will know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:20) And it might be a helpful tool to for you to "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith." (2 Cor 13:5) And for those of you who think it's wrong to question the beliefs of others, please consider the Scriptures on the matter. The Bible disagrees with you.
43 comments:
one time i asked a pastor about the confession of faith of their own denomination. do you teach this? she said yes we believe it, but we don't shove it down their thought's...
seems like appeasement is preferable to conflict. a church would rather insure that there is peace within the congregation, rather then division that comes from calling for the truth. many pastors are afraid of losing their position and income; so they will never call into question the hard teachings of scripture. there is no longer a forum for discussion and debate of spiritual matters, churches have become social clubs. just don't bring up any controversial topics or you will offend someone. it's OK to believe in the sovereignty of God, just so long as He doesn't offend our noble sentiments...
I think you meant "shove it down their throats", although I really like the concept "shove it down their thoughts."
I am stunned at the capacity of people -- even self-proclaimed Christians -- to agree with and oppose a position at the same time. "Why, yes ... yes I do believe this ... unless, of course, you ask me if I believe it." Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.
Just for clarification, Open Theists believe that God knows everything about the future. He just knows it as possibilities and not actualities. Every possibility has been thought of and planned for.
Yeah, I got that about Open Theism. It could be said, then, that God possibly knows about the future, but doesn't actually know about the future. (Sorry ... being funny.) The truth is, however, that Open Theism clings to both "omniscience" and the fact that God does not know the actual future -- what will actually happen. That is, there is an "omni" (everything) and a "not".
You assert that in this created world we live in the future is completely "knowable". Here is where we disagree. God has created the world with an, at least partially, open future. Open in the sense that it has possible different outcomes, as opposed to the appearance of different outcomes (traditional view). To say that God does not completely know the unknowable future does not detract from his omniscience. We both agree that God knows everything there is to know, we just disagree on what there is to know.
We all live our lives as though this is true. We act as though our decisions are our own, and that we could have actually decided differently. Don't we?
You can't by definition be omniscient if you don't know everything, and everything would necessarily include the actual future, since that is a something.
I assert that God knows all things. You assert that He does not. He knows the past and only the possible future events. He doesn't know the actual events. This is (part of) the definition of Open Theism.
You offer your reasons here. Fine. Are they biblical or philosophical? (I'm not asking if you find it in Scripture. I'm asking if the reason you take the position is that the Bible makes you or that your philosophical position(s) makes you.)
And, to be clear, I merely pointed out that you claim to believe in the omniscience of God and then add that there is something that God does not know -- actual future events. Your proper response would be, "Yes, I disagree with Omniscience" or "No, I believe that God knows all things and that 'actual future' is no exception. I was wrong." You're perfectly free to disagree with Omniscience. It is the agree/disagree that I'm talking about.
would you agree that it matters not what we believe. what matters most is what God has revealed about Himself. and if we sincerely want to know something about his nature then we have to go to his Word. this why statements like, i believe, i assert, my feeling is, do not qualify. but with respect to His word, then yes i believe because His word says so.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega the Beginning and the End." Rev 22; 12.
this is a fully inclusive statement. the LORD is the beginning and the end of all things. that includes times, events, futures and destiny's.
Hi Stan,
Someone has made the point that in the past confessions and creeds were written to identify those who do not share "like precious faith". Now they are written to allow as many in as possible.
A big obstacle we face as Christians who take our faith (and by application doctrine) seriously is the phenomena of pastors and teachers who claim to hold to some doctrinal statement, yet wiggle out of it when called to account for things they've said or done which contradict. Try to respectfully discuss these things with the people involved and the atmosphere will become decidedly cool.
Does this make them wolves and false teachers? I hate to think this. But what other conclusion can there be? (It's a real question.)
Alec
The atmosphere becomes decidedly cool or remarkably heated indeed.
I've been grappling with the problem of heresy, heterodoxy, and mere differences of perception. Some disagreements between true doctrine and personal view rise to a different level than others. Say, your church creed affirms the Trinity and your pastor denies is. That's critical (read "heresy"). On the other hand (and I've actually run into this), your church creed affirms baptism by total immersion but the pastor thinks that other forms will work as well. I'm not so sure that rises to the same level of problems. The first pastor would be a wolf, a false teacher. The second wouldn't necessarily be. The answer to your question to me then would depend on the particular variation from orthodoxy in view.
One personal story might illustrate it. One of the pastors of the church I attended was "sane" -- consistent with biblical theology. When the co-pastor one Sunday invited everyone to stand and say the "Sinner's Prayer" and claimed that everyone who said it was now saved, I was aghast. I asked the co-pastor. "Well, the Bible says that whoever confesses, so ..." "But," I countered, "it goes on to say 'and believes.'" "Yeah, that will follow." This guy, in my book would be a false teacher, a wolf. I spoke to the other pastor. "Are you in agreement with him?" "No," he answered, "but I don't want to make waves." See, it's harder for me to classify him as a false teacher. He didn't agree, but his action (saying nothing) was contradicting his belief statement. I see a difference between the two.
Yes, excellent examples which show the need for humility and mental clarity in discerning and assessing these things. Playing the ostrich doesn't work too well.
Alec
Ah, but asking the questions and exploring the possibilities is not playing ostrich, is it? :)
Do you think that possibilities are real?
I'm not sure of the meaning of your question. There are "real possibilities". But if you're asking in regard to the problem of "Omniscience" versus "Open Theism", "Omniscience" defined as "knowing everything" over against "God cannot know future actualities" is a contradiction. Padding the fall with "He knows all possibilities" doesn't help when followed by "but cannot know actualities" since "cannot know" and "knows everything" are contradictory.
Ah, but asking the questions and exploring the possibilities is not playing ostrich, is it? :)
Certainly not! What we're doing is just exactly the opposite.
Josh, that question moves away from theology and into philosophy. Fiction had grappled with the question of, "If the outcome is known, is there really any choice?" Some day yes and some say no, but Scripture seems to indicate yes. God knows all that will happen, but we are still responsible for our very real choices. Just because the outcome is known doesn't make the choice invalid.
My point is we all live as though true possibilities actually exist. Isn't it cognitive dissonance to live as though there are possibilities, if you believe that possibilities are not actually true? If God knows the future completely as actually true, possibilities are a myth. I agree that this is philosophy, and I disagree that scripture indicates one way or the other on this topic. Where the Bible is unclear it is not out of bounds to use philosophy to explain things.
Also, to say "God cannot know future actualities" is not a contradiction if the future doesn't exist this way. Saying "God cannot know the color of unicorn blood" doesn't make God non-Omniscient, it is just a nonsense statement. (Even though we all know it is purple)
If by "possibilities" you mean "things that may happen" (as opposed to "possible way things are"), then possibilities don't exist in the sense of "have reality". They are potential, not actual.
But I'm baffled by this problem you have. Humans do not know the future. We live with all possibilities before us. It's a matter of perspective.
And the contradiction is not that God cannot know future actualities. The contradiction is with OMNISCIENCE (the point of the post). You believe in Omniscience along with "God cannot know" something. That is a contradiction.
Of course, you're right. If the future cannot exist and, therefore, God cannot know it, that's fine. Except that God repeatedly and infallibly predicts the future including the free will choices of people in that future and claims to know everything from beginning to end ... which we've just determined doesn't exist. Problem.
Bottom line, Josh, you're arguing from a philosophical a priori position and not from a necessarily biblical position. That is, nothing in Scripture requires your philosophical position. (You won't even find your "free will" there.)
God created time and is outside of time. He sees the end the same time he sees the beginning. There are no "possibilities" with him.
There you go, Glenn, getting all "orthodoxy" on us. :)
I like the phrase I heard once. God knows all contingencies, but He knows nothing contingently. No possibilities; only certainties.
That, of course, assumes you buy into that whole "God is Omniscient" thing.
Speaking of philosophy Glenn chimes in with Plato's view of God. Of course this philosophy is fine, because it matches your interpretation of the Bible. I guess all the verses about God experiencing time with us and responding to humans in time must be wrong. How does God regret when he knew it all along? How does God change his mind? The Bible speaks to both of these.
Josh, when your arguments begin with "This is what we learn from Scripture" rather than "My philosophy requires", then we'll be talking on the same basis. On the other hand, when God says, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'" (Isa 46:9-10), then we're starting from "He sees the end from the beginning" and working from there ... just like the Bible says.
Josh,
Please help me to understand what you're questioning, because I'm not getting it. You talk about "open theists" who see God as understanding "all possibilities". And then about the future as not being "completely knowable".
From the human perspective, all we have is possibilities. Otherwise life would be futile. Most non-Christian philosophies come to this futility eventually. Another way of looking at this would be to say that they are oriented to death. Freud's late in life "death drive" is only one obvious example.
Perhaps you're trying to see things as God sees them. The end to such a path must be failure.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. -Isaiah 55.8-9
Why the need to focus on how God sees things? Why is that perspective so important to you right now?
Alec
My questions were not rhetorical. How does God act in time? How can God regret something knowing he created it to be no other way? How does God change his mind? God even tells us this is how he responds to repentance in Jeremiah 18.
It does not require us to admit that God knows exactly how the future with play out for Him to declare the end from the beginning. You are starting with your philosophy "God is outside of time" (not found in the Bible), and interpreting scripture based on it. God says his purpose will be established. God knows perfectly what he will do in all circumstances and can safely declare there is not possible future that ends with His final purpose not being established. He can also see and infinite number of "endings", and knows his victory will be the end to all of them.
Alec, I think when we believe something about God it affects the way we worship. Whether we want to or not, we envision and imagine what God is like. If I envision God controlling and orchestrating the world as it is, I have a lot of questions. For example all the people that I know that try to control everything in this way are usually insecure. Is a micromanaging, controlling God insecure. Isn't God lying to us if we are given the appearance of possibilities, but in reality there is no such thing? Also, if God had determined everything from the beginning of time, isn't he less intelligent than a version of God that could allow agents to freely chose and still bring about His will. This is where I think the verse in Isaiah 55 applies. I can actually imagine how God could overcome Satan and sin by creating beings He knew were going to act in the exact way He determined them to act. Authors and film directors do this all the time. I cannot comprehend how He is able to bring about His will, while leaving the future partially open, but His ways are higher than our ways.
I don't know to whom you addressed these remarks, Josh, but if it was me ...
1. I've never spoken of God out of time. Glenn did. I'm not starting with that philosophy.
2. You've apparently never had children. I took my kids in for life-saving innoculations. I regretted it (felt bad about it). I still did it.
3. How does God not change (Num 23:19-20; 1 Sam 15:29; Mal 3:6; James 1:17) but change His mind (Exo 32:14)? This is either a contradiction or you have to figure out how to put them together. Thus, given historical orthodox teaching that God is immutable, I assume that nâcham means that He changed directions. If God said, "I'm going to take them to THIS point and then turn in that direction", that would look just like nâcham. You'll have to figure out how God does not change but changes. To me, nothing in the text requires that God changes His mind. It simply requires that His direction appears to change, which does not require no knowledge of actual future events.
4. You cannot maintain a "hands off" God who surrenders Sovereignty to Man's Autonomy and then declares the outcome before it starts (the end from the beginning). He doesn't know. And the notion that all possible outcomes end in His victory doesn't even make any sense.
Since the rest is in Alec's ballfield, I'll see if he answers. (As for me, a less-than-Sovereign, less-than-Omniscient, less-than-all-that-other-stuff God is not more worthy of my worship and trust than the one I see in Scripture.)
Hi Josh,
Do you believe in the God of the Bible, exactly as He is described there? If you do not, then there really is no way that what others here are saying to you will be satisfying to you.
Here is just one picture of the nature of God:
And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. -Exodus 33.19-23
The splendor of the Lord is so great that no man can look upon Him and live. Just think about that for a little while.
In those with saving faith such a revelation about the nature and character of God that we have in the written words of the Bible leads us to humility of thought about these things. It's not that we don't care about them, or think about them. Rather, we have the attitude that the Bible corrects and directs our thinking, not the other way around.
Are God's thoughts higher than your thoughts, or are your thoughts equal to God's?
I don't mean this to be disrespectful to you in any way. These are clarifying questions.
Alec
Alec,
Now I am the one that is confused. I don't feel like you are being disrespectful, I actually have no idea what your point is. To answer your questions. Yes, I believe in God as he is described in the Bible. The clearest representation of what God looks like is Jesus. Yes, I believe that Gods thoughts are higher than my thoughts.
A few clarifying points.
1. There is a great deal of debate about how the Bible describes God in certain areas.
2. To say that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts does not equal, "to me this looks really bad, but it must not be because God is in control and has the future all settled."
Hi Josh,
Here's where we can't go any further. There is no debate in my mind with how the Bible describes God in certain areas. Since there is debate in your mind, I'd advise you to go back to the Bible and to prayer. I will bow out at this point.
Alec
2. To say that God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts does not equal, "to me this looks really bad, but it must not be because God is in control and has the future all settled."
That's actually exactly how we should view it. God has demonstrated this many times in the Bible, none more clearly than Jesus. When He died, His disciples scattered because they thought it was really bad, but to God it was actually His exact plan. We don't know what God's plans for the really bad things in our lives are, but we can rest assured that He has a good plan. If Open Theism is true, we have no assurance that the really bad things will have a good finale, since not even God knows if they will. That is a weak God that cannot guarantee His good plan. He is merely hoping that things will turn out, though He's apparently extremely certain that He at least wins in the end some how. Everything in between is luck.
David, I will respectfully disagree with you. You have cherry picked the most obvious example of how you believe it works, and I agree with everything you have asserted about Jesus' situation. In the world I live in, really bad things don't always have a good finale. Take the hypothetical of a parent accidentally backing over their child in a car and killing them, or even some one suffering through depression who eventually takes their life. So you are telling me that it was God's good plan for this parent to tragically kill their own child, or God planned for this person to live their life in depression and eventually take their own life? I can see how God can use these events to positively change the lives of others in the situation, but how can we possibly assert that it was good for the deceased, especially if they were apart from God?
Like it says in Jeremiah God is like a potter. Potters mold the clay, they impact the clay. The pot doesn't just pop into existence. God uses the Holy Spirit to shape our lives and in this way shape history. God can meticulously plan for any and every possibility, and can guarantee his success through the influence of the Holy Spirit and His wisdom.
Here is a metaphor. Imagine history as a giant chess match. God knows every possible move of his opposition, and always counters perfectly. To say that God will lose, is like saying Bobby Fisher would lose to me. In 1 million attempts I would lose 1 million times. Satan loses in every possible future.
The chess match theme was always interesting to me (heard it often before). It puts God in a constant battle -- always reacting, always responding, never Sovereign. Very talented, but not Supreme.
Here's my difficulty. "So you are telling me that it was God's good plan for this parent to tragically kill their own child?" I cannot even fathom how it is that you think that God accomplished the death of His own Son with this "knowledge of infinite possibilities" but no knowledge of actualities and no interference in Human Free Will. The Bible says that those who killed Christ did what God's hand and plan had predestined to take place (Acts 4:26-28). Without knowing what would actually happen? Without interfering with Human Free Will? Indeed, the Scriptures are full of direct, precise, highly detailed predictions of the Messiah which, according to you, God could not know would take place. It's not like every possible scenario would include, say, He would be crucified or nailed to a cross or His side would be pierced. There had to be an infinite number of scenarios that did not include those specifics (just to name a select few).
I don't see God as a passenger, a "divine chess player", playing well against Mankind and Satan and quite confident, but along for the ride like everyone else because He cannot know the end from the beginning and is subject to Human Free Will. Indeed, the only reason I can see for this system is not Scripture, but a prior commitment to Autonomy -- Libertarian Free Will -- which you will not find in Scripture. Conversely, if God is this rider on the storm, He is not the God of the Bible or the God that the Church has recognized for 2000 years or the God that Israel recognized from the beginning. Your position requires that the Holy Spirit failed to inform the vast majority of believers throughout time that they were wrong on that whole "God knows the past and the future perfectly" and "God is absolutely Sovereign" thing ... but fortunately filled you in on it. I always have a hard time when people suggest special knowledge that wasn't known before.
In my metaphor God would be the ultimate chess player and the creator of the rules. Therefore, his Sovereignty comes in the designation of rules by which all must follow. He just decides that He will also obey the rules.
"I cannot even fathom how it is that you think that God accomplished the death of His own Son with this "knowledge of infinite possibilities" but no knowledge of actualities and no interference in Human Free Will."
A good chess player at times can predict that they will beat you in 12 moves, even though you may not be able to see it. It makes no difference what you do, they will still win in 12 moves. How is it unreasonable to think that God can do this, only infinitely better?
"How is it unreasonable to think that God can do this, only infinitely better?"
Wow! That sounds a lot like "God knows actual future events."
On Omniscience and Sovereignty, I (and historical orthodoxy) have always understood them (and more) based on what I see in Scripture to be absolutes. Omniscience means knows everything, past, present, and future. Sovereignty means in charge of everything. That sort of thing. You understand them to be always limited. Limited knowledge. Limited control. It would seem that the only absolute you hold to in this is the Absolute Libertarian Free Will of Man.
In your chess analogy, the good chess player can only predict the moves of a predictable opponent. Certainly there are only a finite number of moves available, but, as you have stated, the options given humanity are infinite. Without God's intervention, He couldn't know exactly how Jesus would be executed. He couldn't have known from the beginning when the perfect time for Christ to appear would be. He couldn't know what standard practice of executing prisoners would be available. And yet, He knew exactly how Jesus would die from a time that He couldn't know for sure how it would happen. The other problem is, chess has a limited number of moves available. The number of moves available to humanity are infinitely more variable than chess, and since we don't actually play by the rules, the good chess player couldn't know in 12 moves he'd win because his opponent would not be making predictable moves. If one player is moving according to the rules and the other moving as they please, there can be no clear prediction.
David, as I am sure you are aware, every metaphor has limits, but I will push this one out a little more. At any given time there are a finite number of moves for each turn, but there are an infinite number of possible games. God perfectly sees and knows the present in all facets, therefore he has intimate knowledge of us and the number of options given to humanity are not infinite to God. Also, God sets the rules and to say that we operate outside of the rules is untrue. The other piece you seem to miss is that God entered humanity. Jesus knew exactly what and when to say and do things in order to bring about His final goal on the cross. Like the wise chess player, Jesus didn't need to control what others were doing. He knew the response his actions would create. The people around Him were predictable as He knew them perfectly, even to their innermost being.
Josh, it would appear that you are suggesting that to God there was a "finite number of possibilities" and that, in the case of Jesus, the only possible event was that He would be arrested, tried, whipped, hung on a cross, pierced with a lance, and buried ... since that's what was prophesied and that's what happened. That is, there were no other possibilities or God's prediction might have failed. It appears that you're arguing that God knew the actual future events, at least in this case.
(Note: At no time has David or I suggested that God "controls what others were doing" in the sense that you are using it. I suspect you're arguing against something that no one -- we, at least -- is claiming.)
God doesn't mind control people to accomplish His will, but His influence is irresistible. If He didn't want someone to do something He didn't need to control them to do it, but they will accomplish His will through their choice. He knows what will happen, He's not reacting to possibilities, He's accomplishing His plan.
Stan,
Yes I would say that God knew the actual future events in that case, because He was the one making the decisions. Jesus is God after all.
He doesn't mind control people, but his influence is irresistible? Using his irresistible influence is exactly the type of "controls what others were doing" that I am talking about.
Correct me if this statement fails to represent your belief: God uses his irresistible influence to ensure that the decisions of humans bring about His will.
From what I see in scripture. God is able to use the decisions of all to bring about His will. He doesn't need to use irresistible influence, he can resourcefully use the free decisions of people, along with non-coercive influence of the Holy Spirit to shape human history.
If God doesn't influence people, what is your take on the passages that indicate He did, like pharoah not releasing the Israelites, or Saul's anger toward David, or the High Priest that decided Jesus needed to die? Those people are all specifically referenced as having their mind made up by God.
The way I read your position is that we make our choices and God reacts, and yet Scripture tells us the opposite. We may mean to do something one way, but God meant it for another. Not that He made it good, He planned it for good. Your view doesn't allow for the passages that indicate God influencing people before hand and certainly doesn't explain how He can so accurately predict the future to the slightest detail. Using your chess analogy of being able to know you'll win in "x" number of moves doesn't mean you can predict the exact moves that are going to be made by your opponent, only that you can counter each one in a way to produce a desired outcome. The steps between are hazy and anyone that makes specific predictions based on hazy data is a fool.
Josh,
" I would say that God knew the actual future events in that case, because He was the one making the decisions."
Isn't this a little problematic from your view? It wasn't Jesus who decided to be mocked, falsely tried, crucified, or pierced. All those events were outside of His choices. Surely there was a large array of other possible choices those people could have made that would not have included all these things predicted. Or are you saying that in some cases God controls people?
"God uses his irresistible influence to ensure that the decisions of humans bring about His will."
No, that statement is not what represents what I see in Scripture. God uses whatever He will. Circumstances, "closed doors", "open doors", divine influence, even satanic influence. Most of the time I would imagine He uses no influence at all. It's just what we would do. The difference between your view and mine is that He always knows what that will be. (If you need another list of Scripture references on all this, I can provide it.)
Actually, the irresistible influence was from me, but by it meant what you said.
Sure, David, but I was quoting Josh.
what if we live in universe where possibility and contingencies only exist in the mind
of the ignorant. in other words; the idea of a concept of limited knowledge, can only be derived by a mind that is limited. it is a human character that postulates and attempts to define the limits of God's knowledge. because we are limited. how often we start a sentence by saying " i believe God is like" this like trying to prove a negative. in order to do so, we must have infinite knowledge about all things, in order to prove that one possibility.
and yet we are given information from God himself, and what do we do? we redefine His nature by our limited mind.
Post a Comment