During my lifetime I have heard a number of eminent and highly educated persons make serious remarks about the existence and nature of God. They include not only theologians (including Emil Brunner), but historians (including Arnold Toynbee), as well as politicians, psychologists, sociologists, columnists, educators, scientists, and professors in various fields. They spoke from both their beliefs and feelings, based largely on their informed but also private interpretation of issues and evidence. There was much of nature in their views. Nature is seen as the total of the creation we know about. From anthropologists there seemed to be a study backwards to emergence. Biblical Christians tend to find man from the creation to the present, from the beginning to the end (present to future), rather than from the present back to the beginning. For most the answer working backwards provides evolution as the logical initiation and developer (evolver). God, even if he exists, may become unnecessary – unless the advocate feels God put the initial factors in place in some way. For whatever reason, the laws of nature get the job done for developing the animal to a thinking, upright being. Since God is not necessary for the majority, as current common record affirms or implies, and does not fit natural processes, God does not exist. Or, as the deists would have it, God left his creation, so man proceeds as though God is wholly disinterested making no gestures of influence. Thomas Jefferson believed that mankind would in the immediate generations after him believe in an unconcerned God – if any.
God believers across the World try to revert to their founding scriptures to explain God. They believe those closest to the creation of an animal-like figure with self-consciousness, knew about some beginnings, perhaps also endings, of which they are a part. So the matter works out in the manner revealed in Genesis and Job, affirming a personal God. Faith begins for the Christian in the belief that God exists, and he communicates. That communication is summarized in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The information is complete in that the narrative ends with the plan of Jesus Christ to earth’s closure and restoration. God, in Christ, gives what is necessary for man’s hope (life continuance). Who is qualified to say more than Jesus would say? To add anything after Revelation is to confer higher authority with more complete information to those following after. Once at the top of the hill man does not go back down seeking out new prophets for additional input. Nothing more is needed. It is all here. Why confuse revealed meanings?
So what is God like? Scripture affirms that he is Invisible; that he is a Spirit; that he is a redeemer of those he approves; and, that his nature is holiness, love and truth. He is characterized by immensity, eternity, complexity, incongruity (paradox), but knowable in personality, character, authority, redemption, righteousness, and creativity. His character is known in perfection, love, comprehension, holiness, Spirit, unity, in all idyllic affirmative realities. Adding more (as there is more) stretches human credulity too far. To add would distract from the goal of redemption. The revelation of the Trinity is partly to inform mankind that personality is not the only God factor. The existence of God as singular entity, is an important factor affirming exclusivity, and to have three persons readily implies that there is more to be known in the unity of God. The factor of God that includes three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the highest we know in relation to the image of God as person in man – and all we need to know. To deny that understanding or to make three Gods of personalities – makes God too small. God is three in one, and more. It will take eternity to learn about and understand the more. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020