A recent example a question that came up on another discussion board regarding whether or not the Holy Spirit was omniscient in light of Matthew 24:36. I honestly think it’s the wrong question to ask, since the scriptures never say anything else other than the Spirit of God is omniscient (Col. 3, 1 Cor. 2, Isaiah 40) and knows the deep things of God. By definition, this excludes the possibility of the Spirit of God ‘not’ knowing anything. Scripture speaks that the Spirit searches the deep things of God – so to wonder whether or not the Spirit went through kenosis as a part of His submission to the Father and the Son is wrong.

But folks sit on message boards throwing some things back and forth like ‘oh, it’s a ping pong ball we can agree to disagree on’. How DARE you treat the discussion of the nature of the Holy One like MATH!

I’m a Calvinist because I believe that scripture – ALL of scripture – teaches the doctrines of grace. I don’t seek to go into some of the speculation that some theologians have dug into (i.e.- the Eternal Covenant of Redemption) because scripture doesn’t speak on them. I don’t spend much time on the eternal decrees (infralapsarianism vs supralapsarianism) because I believe that some scriptures teach each view equally. I do my best to approach the topic of God’s love and God’s hate (Psalm 7) carefully. I don’t have a problem saying God hates sinners because of their sin because scripture lays it out clear as day. I also don’t have a problem saying that God chooses to love some sinners and pass over others (i.e.- Pilate vs Paul) because scripture lays it out clearly.

So speaking on these things isn’t an issue. Beyond these, I don’t believe we have a ‘right’ to toss some things around. We risk becoming irreverent in some academic discussions, specifically in regard to the nature of God. You don’t see the ancients doing it – they realized that not only will God hold them accountable for either leading people astray via deliberately wrong teaching (if they taught something wrong), but also for accidentally introducing WRONG ideas which may be believed by more credulous and less grounded sheep (i.e.- could Jesus have sinned ? Did Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark and expand upon things that never really happened ?). When it becomes simply an idea you can toss around in your mind, you’ve lost the fear of God in discussing the nature of God.

I’ve been guilty of it at some points and become a lot more sensitive to it as of late.

I understand why you asked the question and I’m not attributing anything to you specifically – just tossing out a word of caution – you feel me ?

Remember Who we’re talking about. Both the question, the answer to the question and the discussion of the question need to be approached a little more solemnly.

Grace and Peace, Fam.