A question from a friend:

“Can humans grasp ultimate truth/reality?”

From a Christian perspective, ultimate truth or reality is said to be based or found in God. So the question is can humans comprehend God? And to extend the question, if so, can we express this comprehension in words?

At one end of the spectrum we find the position that we have no ability to comprehend God. Frequently in Christianity it is said that God is either above human reasoning or excluded from it (because he designed it, presumably).

More moderate views hold that God can be understood to a certain extent, but our knowledge is limited.

The standard evangelical view (which is by far a minority position in Christianity) is that God can be understood (though even here we find limits). He has revealed himself in His word and so as far as His word describes Him we are able to understand Him (or at least make descriptive statements that make sense and do not contradict each other about Him).

To do this we often must resort to using philosophy to refine our understandings. This is somewhat controversial, but I would argue that the “ultra-evangelical” idea that we can base our theology solely on the Bible is impractical. To interpret and understand the Bible, we must use some form of hermeneutics, itself a philosophical discipline.

Ultimately, I find problematic the idea that we cannot comprehend God, which seems to be a self-defeating position: to say we cannot have any understanding of God is to make a statement that shows understanding of at least some aspect of God’s character (call it His mysteriousness). Further, to say that God is above or outside of human reasoning raises some serious issues. If God is not “subject” to the law of non-contradiction, for instance, then he could potentially exist and not exist at the same time!! It seems we have to have some ability to understand or comprehend God.

At the same time, I can readily admit there must be limits to that knowledge. We finite beings obviously cannot fully comprehend an infinite being. But this does not mean we cannot comprehend in part. The traditional evangelical view holds that we can understand God in a systematic way (hence I have several very thick books on my shelf on “Systematic Theology”). While I was basically raised on this understanding of God, I am highly suspicious of systematic theology. The proof-texting done by theologians tends to twist passages of the Bible well out of their intended context to imply things they may not necessarily mean. Of course, I do believe the Bible very clearly teaches (though perhaps not in a proof-text friendly form) some essential doctrines: the separation of man from God by sin, the deity and humanity of Christ, the death burial and resurrection, salvation by grace alone, the trinity, the return of Christ. Those seem pretty big and pretty clear. But a lot of more minor doctrines seem much less clear and much less spelled out. In those grey areas, I worry that proof-texting makes things too black and white, too cut and dry, and in some cases misses the point all-together.

So I guess that makes me a bit of a moderate evangelical. I think we can understand God to the extent that He has made Himself known in scripture, and perhaps more so based on philosophy. But I think perhaps we have overdone it in our quest for a simple, systematized understanding of God.

There may be more mystery than some evangelicals want to admit.