Why are many people prepared in advance to maintain that, whatever else God may be, He is not the concrete, living, willing, and acting God of Christian Theology? I think the reason is as follows. Let us suppose a mystical limpet, a sage among limpets, who (rapt in vision) catches a glimpse of what Man is like. In reporting it to his disciples, who have some vision themselve (though less than he) he will have to use many negatives. He will have to tell them that Man has no shell, is not attached to a rock, is not surrounded by water. And his disciples, having a little vision of their own to help them, do get some idea of Man. But then there come erudite limpets, limpets who write histories of philosophy and give lectures on comparative religion, and who have never had any vision of their own. What they get out of the prophetic limpet's words is simply and solely the negatives. From these, uncorrected by any positive insight, they build up a picture of Man as a sort of amorphous jelly (he has no shell) existing nowhere in particular (He is not attatched to a rock) and never taking nourishment (There is no water to drift it toward him). And having a traditional reverence for Man they conclude that to be a famished jelly in dimensionless void is the supreme mode of existence, and reject as crude, materalistic superstition any doctrine which would attibute to Man a definite shape, a structure, and organs
--From
MiraclesThis Weeks segment from Scripture is
1 kings 22:1-40. Pay close attention to what seems to be God sending a decieving or lying spirit. What does all this mean?!