R.C. Sproul

And yet at the same time, after using all these images that communicate something to us about Himself, then He'll pull down the blind and say, but remember, I am not a man.

The Bible will use language that God changes His mind or even that God repents, but then we're warned again.

Remember, I'm only speaking in human terms because those are the only terms you have.

And I remember when Paul Tillich was trying to wrestle with this problem of our language and the limits of human language, tried to make an important distinction between signs and symbols and so on, and trying to get us to understand the limitations of our statements about God, he got himself confused.

He was lecturing in Chicago, and he said it's improper to say that God is a being.

because we have these categories of being and non-being.

He said, gentlemen, God is not a being.

He's the ground of being.

And then he said, we can't attribute attributes drawn from our common human beingness and give them to God.

God, he says, is neither personal nor impersonal, but is the ground, the grund von personality, right?

So he asks any questions, and the student says, well, Dr. Tillich, is the ground of personality personal or impersonal?

And Tillich about had a stroke, but the student was nailing him to the tree because the student was saying, sir, the term impersonal incorporates everything outside the category of the term personal.

There is no third alternative.

So when you say God is neither personal nor impersonal, you're not saying anything.

You might as well just stand up there and go, but that's how far this discussion has degenerated.

But again, the Bible itself says the secret things belong to the Lord our God.

but that which He has revealed belongs to us and to our seed forever.

Luther made the critical distinction between what he called the Deus absconditus and the Deus revelatus.

The absconding God

We use that word abscond in English for the guy who runs off with the receipts from the bank.