Belief

The Beard/No Beard Challenge

CJ Casciotta — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:35:47 -0800

Hi my name is CJ and because it is winter time and getting colder, I am highly considering growing a beard.

There are many advantages to growing a beard. I know you're wondering what they are so I will list some.

1. I grow one step closer to looking like a viking.

2. I will give off the perception of deep thought when really I am just stroking my chin.

3. People may think that I hunt bears or go ice fishing just by looking at me.

There are also some disadvantages that I am wary of.

1. I have tried this before, and each time my mustache refuses to connect with the rest of my beard. It's like there are these two spots on my face that refuse to give up their child-like innocence.

2. It is difficult to maintain and often itchy.

3. I have never hunted a bear and have never been ice fishing. I don't want to live a lie.

So you decide. Should I grow a beard or not?

no beard. kind of beard.

Can The New Testament Be Trusted?

Sean McDowell — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:36:58 -0800

I love talking with skeptics, atheists, and anyone else who will listen to my reasons for believing that Jesus is the resurrected Lord. In my opinion, the historical evidence is compelling. Yet the first step in demonstrating the unique claims and deeds of Jesus is to establish that the record of his claims is reliable. Obviously, if the Scriptures have been corrupted through history then our knowledge of the historical Jesus has been deeply undercut. Fortunately, for those who believe in Jesus, the historical evidence for the Bible is solid.

The point of demonstrating the reliability of the New Testament is not to prove your skeptical friends wrong, but to have a trustworthy roadmap for the journey of life. In order to have a right relationship with God, we need to have an accurate picture of Him. I believe the Bible can be trusted and that we can know God through its pages.

Manuscript Authority

The first question to ask is, Can we faithfully reconstruct the original text of the New Testament? Having multiple, early copies gives textual scholars the best chance of success in this endeavor.

The New Testament dwarfs other books of ancient history in this criterion. Most ancient books have fewer than ten existing manuscripts. But for the NT there are over 5,000 partial or whole Greek manuscripts. If other languages are included, the number jumps beyond 25,000!

Some recent critics, such as Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus), have claimed that there are too many variants across these manuscripts to reconstruct the original with confidence. But this conclusion is far too hasty. For one thing, 80 percent of the variations are simply spelling errors that are easily accounted for. While there are a handful of minor texts upon which NT scholars disagree, there is no textual variation that threatens a central Christian doctrine.

Regarding the date between original composition and extant copies, most ancient works have a gap of more than 700 years, with some works, such as Plato and Aristotle, being twice that. In contrast, there are fragments of the Gospel of John dating within 40 years of composition (John Rylands Papyri) and a near complete copy of the NT within 100-150 years of original composition (Chester Beatty Papyri). From a textual point of view, the NT documents are exceptional, accurate, and reliable documents. And even if all the manuscripts were destroyed, we could reconstruct the entire NT (except for eleven verses) through the quotes of the early church fathers.

Early Dating

A promising means of dating the Gospels early comes from the work of noted Roman historian, Colin Hemer. He reasons backwards from the book of Acts to the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The book of Acts is about the origin of the church, with special focus on the ministries of Peter and Paul. The book includes the martyrdom of Stephen (7:54-60) and James (12:1-2), but it says nothing of the deaths of Peter and Paul (between A.D. 63-66). Acts also fails to include the accounts of the Jewish war with the Romans (A.D. 66) and the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Acts abruptly ends with Paul’s arrest in Rome without any resolution to the situation.

These are significant events that radically altered the relationship between the Romans and Jews. Not including them would be like writing a history of the U.S. and not including 9/11! If we found such a book, we would rightly conclude that it was most likely written prior to September, 2001. Similarly, since the writer of Acts (Luke) left out such important events as listed above, it is reasonable to conclude that he wrote his Gospel before they took place, around A.D. 62. Since Luke was written before Acts, and Matthew and Mark likely before Luke, then the three Synoptic Gospels were written at least before the mid 60’s A.D. This dwarfs the first biography of Alexander the Great, written over four hundred years after his death.

Since the NT documents are written within 30 years of the events they record, they are unlikely to be legend. Eyewitnesses would still be around to correct errors, exaggerations, or outright mistakes.

Embarrassing Accounts

One criterion historians often use to judge the accuracy of a historical record is whether the writers include disparaging and embarrassing material. Given the human tendency to leave out information that makes one look bad, embarrassing material is likely true.
The NT fares well by this criterion. Consider a few examples of the embarrassing material recorded by the Gospel writers. Jesus calling Peter “Satan” (Mark 8:33); the disciples not understanding the parables of Jesus (Mark 4:10); the disciples falling asleep while Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:40); and Jesus criticizing his disciples for having little faith (Matthew 8:18-27). The Gospel writers record embarrassing material because they were concerned with truth.

Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony is often considered the best evidence. The ability for a witness to tell the truth rests in part upon the witness’ chronological and geographical nearness to the events. The apostles constantly stressed that they pass both tests:

•   2 Peter 1:16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”
•   1 John 1:1: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life.”
•   Acts 2:32, “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.”

Not only do the apostles claim to be eyewitnesses, there is also archaeological evidence to back their chronological and geographical nearness to the events. In painstaking detail, Colin Hemer combed through each verse of Acts to determine just how careful Luke was as a historian. In the final 16 chapters alone, Hemer identified 84 facts that have recently been substantiated through archaeological and historical research. Luke’s accuracy as a historian is truly remarkable.

There are many other lines of evidence that weigh in favor of the reliability of the New Testament, such as fulfilled prophecy and the testimony of secular sources.   But even the minimal evidence presented in this article is sufficient to demonstrate that the Bible can be trusted. And remember: our task is not merely to defend the Bible to others, but to absorb its truth so our own lives become the greatest witness to Christ.

Some Thoughts About Advent

Brett McCracken — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:44:51 -0800

Though Thanksgiving is not a part of the liturgical season of Advent, I think it fits perfectly as segue or entry point into this period of the church calendar.

Advent, after all, is about anticipating and reflecting upon the mystery that is the Incarnation: the nearly incomprehensible moment when God entered human history by becoming a baby on earth. Thanksgiving is an appropriate predecessor, as a day that we set aside to take stock of what we have, what God has done for us, the bounties and blessings and loves he’s bestowed us. Thanksgiving gets us in the mode of self-effacing gratitude, but it doesn’t end there. It prepares our hearts and minds for the bigger, more solemn, more awesome experience of meditating upon God’s greatest and most mind-blowing gift ever: himself.

It puts everything into perspective. On Thanksgiving, I was amazed and shamed at all the things I have. I was thankful for all the usual stuff (family, friends, a house, my health) as well as some unusual stuff (walnuts, synthesizers, Japanese people, aging), but mostly I was just overwhelmed by the fact that I was even alive: that I existed when I just as well might not have existed, and that God orchestrated it for some spectacularly unfathomable reason.

It made me reflect on the preciousness of life, and how newborn babies often make us say things like “isn’t life a miracle” or some variation of “that’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen.” Which is weird, because babies are really not all that beautiful, in the way we typically conceive of beauty. They are actually a bit deformed and unseemly, what with their frog-like appendages flailing around and their crinkly, crying faces, etc. But we nevertheless are floored by the miracle and beauty of them. And I think it is our response to the very idea of life: of an existence that starts at a defined point, a someone that holds the promise of the world and an unknowing affirmation of everything in its gradually opening eyes. Above all, it’s a sense of wonder. How and where does this little person come into being? Why do we love it and it us? What is its purpose? It’s the supreme mystery of existence.

It’s fitting, then, that God chose to enter our human world as a newborn baby. He could have appeared out of thin air as a 21 year old, or as a 30-year-old prophet ready for some serious ministry. But he chose to start where everyone else starts: in the womb. His incarnation was always about working through—not outside of—creation to reveal himself to us in ways we could understand. And a baby who is born and grows up and dies is something we can understand. It was God coming down to our level to bless our unfortunate little existence by becoming part of it. And his name was Emmanuel—“God With Us.”

Speaking of that, I highly recommend the advent devotional book, God With Us, featuring essays and meditations by the likes of Scott Cairns, Kathleen Norris, and Luci Shaw. In the introduction to the book, which I read last night (Day 1 of Advent), Eugene Peterson captures so much of what I have been feeling about Advent. He writes:

There can’t be very many of us for whom the sheer fact of existence hasn’t rocked us back on our heels. We take off our sandals before the burning bush. We catch our breath at the sight of a plummeting hawk. “Thank you, God.” We find ourselves in a lavish existence in which we feel a deep sense of kinship—we belong here; we say thanks with our lives to Life. And not just “Thanks” or “Thank It,” but “Thank You.” Most of the people who have lived on this planet Earth have identified this You with God or gods. This is not just a matter of learning our manners, the way children are taught to say thank you as a social grace. It is the cultivation of adequateness within ourselves to the nature of reality, developing the capacity to sustain an adequate response to the overwhelming gift and goodness of life.

Wonder is the only adequate launching pad for exploring this fullness, this wholeness, of human life. Once a year, each Christmas, for a few days at least, we and millions of our neighbors turn aside from our preoccupations with life reduced to biology or economics or psychology and join together in a community of wonder. The wonder keeps us open-eyed, expectant, alive to life that is always more than we can account for, that always exceeds our calculations, that is always beyond anything we can make.

I love that Advent simultaneously forces us away from ourselves and our petty problems while also, in a way, affirming them. It’s a season of denying our self and our possibility in the face of the wholly Other that is the mysterious, Incarnate Emmanuel. But it’s also a chance for us to focus, to synthesize our various desires, issues, concerns, and identities into a cohesive oneness with the bewildering fact that we are here, and so is God. There’s a reason why we sing “The hopes and fears of all the years are met in Thee tonight.” We share a planet—the dirt, air, water, DNA—with the creator of the universe. This is the most empowering and humbling fact of history, and the weight of it is immense. It is the reason Advent is historically a very solemn season: because the Incarnation cannot be taken lightly.

As I enter into Advent this year, I’m burdened by just as many hopes and fears as the next guy. There is pain and regret in my heart, love and confusion, physical and emotional imperfection, and immense exhaustion. I sometimes just want to drink eggnog or mulled wine and listen to Over the Rhine’s Darkest Night of the Year (for the record, probably the best Christmas album of all time) while languishing in self-pity and world weariness as stocks and bombs carry the torch of history’s tumultuous march.

And Advent accepts all that. It thrives on unsettledness, uncertainty, and despair. Which is kind of bleak for a holiday season that is typically thought of as the merriest season of all. Until we recognize that our pain makes Advent all the more meaningful—to look forward, expectantly, longingly, to the moment when all the pieces (of our lives, of history, of heaven and earth) come together in a monstrous cymbal crash that reverberates in every corner and cranny of the concert hall.

A Turkey, a Psalm and Biblical Theology

John Barry — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:27:36 -0800

What do turkey, Psalm 8, and biblical theology share in common? Well, I read Psalm 8 almost every year on Turkey Day. Interestingly, Psalm 8 is quoted several times in Hebrews 2. And Hebrews 1-2, in my opinion, is one of the cornerstones of developing a Biblical Theology—a theology that connects the testaments (Old and New).

My family usually has our Thanksgiving dinner on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. So, my reflections are probably a bit belated for most of you. Nonetheless, I think it is always appropriate to discuss turkey, Psalm 8, and Hebrews 2.

Psalm 8 (ESV; emphasis mine): O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? 5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, 7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas. 9 O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

The book of Hebrews quotes this psalm in relation to Jesus; arguing that Jesus is the Son of Man who was "made lower than the angels, for a little while," and subsequently "crowned with glory and honor" (Heb 2:5–8, quoting Psa 8:4–6). Essentially, Christ is the representative of all of humanity, who goes before God the father on our behalf. Many of us have heard this before, but I think on Thanksgiving especially, we should try and reflect upon this concept again, realizing the profundity of what Jesus (the Son of Man and Son of God) has done on our behalf.

Now, I know you are probably still puttering around with all that turkey in your belly, but take a moment to go look at (and pray through) Hebrews 1–2. In doing so, your thanksgiving may mean even more to you this year than ever. I know when I let these words resonate in my innermost being: I am changed, I am brought to tears, I am truly thankful.

Please let me know your reflections on Psalm 8 and Hebrews 1–2. I would also love to know how you think this helps us see the Infinite God in Everything.

(P.S. I hope the thanksgiving food you had was as good as my Momma's cookin').

Thanksgiving as a way of life

Mike Erre — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:57:55 -0800

Adam and Eve had it good! Living together (naked, no less!), in perfect union with each other and God in a garden whose name meant “delight.” No guilt, no shame, no grief, and no death.

There was only one restriction: don’t eat of the fruit of a specific tree. In a garden full of “yeses’ there was only one ‘no.’ Of course, we know how the story goes. The tempter comes and his first move is to direct their attention to the one thing they couldn’t have. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Human nature hasn’t changed much since then. We can have a life full of blessing, but our temptation will still be to focus on what we don’t have or can’t do. Why is it that ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ are two of the hardest words to teach our kids?

Our world helps to foster this sense of entitlement. A nice house, good health, great vacations and living beyond our means have become fundamental American rights. Delayed gratification has gone missing from the cultural landscape. Contentment and simplicity are merely nostalgic remnants of a by-gone era. Hundreds of commercial images a day are designed to cultivate a dissatisfaction with what we have and to focus our attention to what we lack. These days, it seems the tempter has a marketing plan.

Why is it that the day after our national celebration of “thanksgiving” – the day we are supposedly grateful for what we have – is the biggest shopping day of the year? Are we missing something?

So maybe thanksgiving shouldn’t be a holiday. Maybe it should become a way of life where we begin to orient ourselves around what we have and not what we’re missing. Maybe the key to resisting temptation is cultivating that kind of heart.

Beauty and the Existence of God

John Mark Reynolds — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:52:21 -0800

The existence of beauty suggests that a God exists and that He is good. It is not a sufficient proof for the existence of God by itself, but a confirmation of His existence to those with other reasons and personal experiences that suggest His reality.

From Plato to C.S. Lewis, creation as a whole has been viewed as marvelously elegant.

The harmonious plan of the cosmos allows for variation and freedom for created beings. There is a fundamental pattern and order to creation, but also room for the unexpected within the design plan. Too much regularity would seem stagnant, so thankfully the created order also shows variability and the marvelously engineered capacity to adapt and change.

So delightful is the universe that elegant mathematical and scientific theories work better in explaining it than inelegant ones. It is no accident that scientists discover that more elegant theories are more useful in the “real world” than less beautiful ones.

These observations suggest an engineer, or artist, behind the cosmos. But is this just a useful natural adaptation? After all, we tend to care for beautiful things, and so it would be to our advantage to develop a liking for the ecosystem that sustains us.

But humans do not just find their local environment pleasing. They also discover that new areas of the cosmos, where humankind has never been, are beautiful. When my son first went up in a plane and saw “cloud land,” he turned to me with wonder and said, “It is so beautiful.” It was not surprising to him, because even though this land above the clouds would have been unknown to all but the most recent humans, we expect beauty when we come to new vistas and are rarely disappointed.

Gratuitous beauty, beauty that could have no survival value for humankind, exists! Both when we dive to the bottom of the ocean, and when we see distant corners of space, we find stark and weird things, never before known, but clearly lovely. At this point it would surprise us if we found a corner of the cosmos that was not beautiful.

That superabundance of beauty is a hint that a good and loving God may exist.

Ugliness also appears to us at times, but the ugly is less fundamental than beautiful. Ugliness exists as a twisting of the beautiful created order. This truth is taught in Scripture, but can also be observed in creation: every unborn child will grow to express the divine image unless their development is aborted by sin.

Viewed with the widest scope humans possess, the cosmos shows awe-inspiring beauty, and this beauty is repeated in the most focused examination of the basic elements of that massive structure. It is only in the middle, where we find humankind, at the level of choice and agency, that the pattern of beauty is twisted and marred. Yet, even there, the staggering ability of humankind to create beauty based on the common image of God within us reminds us that it is beauty that is fundamentally real.

For a Biblical Christian existence is good and goodness is beautiful. As a result nothing created can be wholly bad or utterly ugly. Even the most shattered part of creation remains part of the beautiful whole, made from the beautiful elements of creation.

Parts of creation, especially humans, require redemption. But even the image of God in fallen man, shattered though it is, retains enough beauty to remind the keen observer of God.

The Particle Collider Points to Design

Sean McDowell — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:47:08 -0800

If you’ve been following the progress of the big particle collider in Geneva, the title of this article may come as a surprise to you. After all, we learned this week that $21,000,000 more dollars is needed to get it up and running by next summer (at the earliest). So, if the collider is not up and running yet, then how can it point to design? Let me explain.

The particle collider is designed to simulate the earliest moments (one trillionth of a second) after the big bang, so scientists can learn more about the makeup of the smallest components of matter. So far, the collider has cost 10 billion dollars. Yes, that’s $10,000,000,000.

Why didn’t the collider succeed during its much hyped launch September 19th? The problem, according to the organization, is the failure of a single, badly soldered electrical connection. In other words, this multi-billion dollar machine, which was so carefully designed, failed to work because of one solitary poor connection. The lesson we learn is clear: the machine won’t work unless it is exquisitely fine-tuned.

The irony is enormous: The particle collider is meant to simulate the beginning of the universe (which many scientists think was an uncaused, chance occurrence), but it cannot even function without incredible intelligent tinkering! The slightest miscalculation, and the entire project fails. If it takes billions of dollars, and the smartest people on the face of the planet, to design a machine to simulate the beginning of the universe, then why should we think the real beginning of the universe could happen without design? If a machine requires such fine-tuning, then so does the universe itself.

This reminds me of the scientists who are trying to prove abiogenesis (life emerging from non-life) by creating life in a test tube. If scientists were ever able to create life from non-life it would only prove one thing: life cannot emerge by chance, but requires intelligent input. Currently scientists have no clue how life emerged on life. Yet even if they were able to simulate such an occurrence, it would actually point towards intelligent design, not chance. The same is true for the particle collider.

Flotation Devices and Prophets

John Barry — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0800

When you are sitting on an airplane with your seat belt fastened and your seat and tray in upright position, you may have noticed the words on the bottom of the pull-out tray: “In case of emergency: Use seat cushion as flotation device.” I don’t know about you, but those words have never comforted me.

Sure, as this plane plummets at a gazillion miles an hour towards the ocean, I am going to rip my seat cushion off of the chair and say, “Wow, I am glad I have this.” I doubt I will even have a chance to use it. When I read, “In case of an emergency,” I think, “I am not going to survive the emergency, so who needs the just ‘in case’ item.”

Many people think that faith is a “just in case of emergency” thing. “When things go bad, I’ll grab my ‘faith’ flotation device—that will help me.” But by the time we have even realized that we are in a faith emergency, our plane has already crashed. When things go bad, you may not get a chance to place your faith in Christ. We try and tell ourselves, “I’ll come back to Jesus later,” or “I will seek God later,” but what if there is no "later?" What if there is no second chance?

I am getting on a plane to Boston this morning to go and present a paper at a conference. Because of that I have been thinking about my stance with God. How will He feel about me when all is said and done? Have I treated God too many times like He is a “in case of emergency” measure? The hope of pearly white gates won’t get me to God. It is my faith in Christ and my subsequent actions that will lead me to Him. The infinite things of God will not just come later, the Infinite God is here; He is now.

Look around; the world desires to see the Infinite God in everything. People are searching for Him everywhere. The emergency is now. Our world is hurting. People are dying. The poor are oppressed. The voice of God is rarely heard, and is more rarely felt. We can’t just put off our relationship with Christ expecting to come back to it later when it is convenient. We have to do something now.

The prophets saw this, they felt it, and they did something about it. When Isaiah prophesies against Hezekiah during the Assyrian King Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, he was not joking around (Isaiah 36). This was not a “just in case” situation—It was an emergency. Hezekiah needed to hear God, and he needed to respond. Likewise, we today need to hear God. We need to call out to Him and obey the prophetic word He has placed on our hearts. Today is a faith emergency.

I leave you with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:50: “Therefore, my beloved brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.”

The Bible and Slavery

John Mark Reynolds — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:48:07 -0800

The Old Testament acknowledges the existence of economic, not racial, slavery in the ancient world and attempts to regulate it. The New Testament undermines the economic viability of slavery by calling for slaves to be treated as “brothers,” but does not call for immediate abolition.

Why not?

The Bible attacks slavery and many other social injustices indirectly. The main focus of the Bible is not human culture, but the relationship between God and humankind. The Bible prioritizes healing the dying soul over dealing with corrupt cultures.

God also recognizes that revolutionary change in human institutions often produces more harm than good.

The fallen world is full of great social evils and humans are busy thinking up new ones every day. Scripture does provide general principles that can be applied to specific cases with the potential to bring about large cultural change, but slowly and over time.

However, since God is most interested in changed hearts and eternal salvation, the Bible does not consist of regulations covering every aspect of life. Instead, God commands and forbids some very basic behaviors and begins the long process of revealing His nature and will to free will beings. The simple lesson of monotheism was difficult enough for the ancient peoples to understand.

Eventually, embracing monotheism undermines slavery: since it demands allegiance to God and the divine will, it places each individual human being on an equal footing. All people are essentially equal before God. Slavery, one person “owning” another as property, is deeply incompatible with this basic truth.

The slavery of the ancient world at the time of the writing of Scripture was economic or military. Losers ended up slaves whether in bankruptcy or defeat. Civilization, and the hope of future progress that goes with it, often depends on highly structured and, by modern standards, rigid social hierarchies. The technology simply did not exist to support a culture as free as is possible in modern times.

Economic slavery is an evil, but not the worst possible evil. The economies of the ancient world were not just and revolved around slavery. But since Greek and Roman people lacked the moral training and economic sophistication to handle a fully free civilization, immediate abolition would have led to social unrest, starvation, and a collapse in civilization. God is a good educator and teaches His lessons as quickly as He can, but He must teach the students He has and not the students we wish He had.

The Bible treats the slave as a human being capable of his or her own relationship with God. Old Testament modification of slavery demanded righteous treatment, undercutting economic justification for bad treatment. By the time Paul asked a master to treat his slave as a “brother,” there was little chance that slavery could long survive amongst Biblically consistent Christians. Over time slavery died out in Christian lands until it experienced a sickening revival with race-based slavery.

Racial slavery finds no justification in Scripture and is much worse than economic slavery. The race-based slave has his or her basic humanity called into question. As a result there was a much stronger argument for immediate abolition of race-based slavery, regardless of the cost. Slavery in the United States occurred far enough along in the Christian era that it stood as an affront to moral progress. As the results of the American Civil War proved, slavery was not necessary for sustaining nineteenth century social order. Indeed, race based slavery undermined the health of any area cursed with its evil as an institution.

On the Comprehensibility of God (Part 2)

Sanjay Merchant — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:52:14 -0800

In my last post, I referred to theologian Elizabeth Johnson's claim that God is "incomprehensible, unfathomable, limitless, ineffable, [and] beyond description." The key problem with her assertion is that she muddles two senses in which God is said to be incomprehensible. The first sense of divine incomprehensibility expresses the theologically modest insight that one can never possess exhaustive knowledge about God. He is too great and his being is too deep to be described in toto; he is ultimately incomprehensible. However, the second sense expresses austere skepticism with regard to one's ability to genuinely know or properly articulate anything about God. In other words, he is utterly incomprehensible.

The Problem with Utter Incomprehensibility

Yet, while ultimate incomprehensibility is uncontroversial, utter incomprehensibility is seriously flawed because describing something as indescribable or comprehending of something as wholly incomprehensible involves a contradiction. It is self-defeating to define God as a being that cannot be defined. The theological pessimist undermines her position in the acts of describing, defining, and comprehending.

Johnson, however, may endorse the subtler notion that human concepts only apply to things in the world of human experience but, since God transcends the world, human concepts cannot apply to God. This is to say that, in utilizing worldy concepts to refer to the matchless and unique God, we "reduce divine reality to an idol." If we say that God is like anything in the world, we commit idolatry.

But, this modified version of utter incomprehensibility also has a fatal flaw: to say that no human concept can apply to God is to say that one concept does, indeed, apply to God; namely, according to philosopher Thomas Morris, "the concept of being such as to escape characterization by human concepts" (Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991], 21). Moreover, it's almost certainly false that human concepts only apply to matters of human experience. We develop concepts about a number of things that we do not, or cannot, experience like numbers, Martians, and Abraham Lincoln.

The Problem with Restricted Comprehensibility

Given that utter incomprehensibility fails, the pessimist may opt for restricted comprehensibility by claiming that almost nothing can be known about God. The problem is that, ironically, one must know quite a bit about God in order to affirm restricted comprehensiblity. Besides, those who believe that humanity bears the divine image have a good reason to be optimistic about the prospect of possessing a clear concept of God. We are designed to know him.