That stifling horror of smoky dark thickness

[makesends]

In my mind, at least, this site is dedicated to discussion and debate of substantive matters, particularly of God. This forum in particular is intended for that purpose. And I do not like to speculate in such a place, but all doctrinal truth —even the most well defined by us— induces within us incomplete thoughts, speculations, intuitions. Hopefully if admitted that it is speculation can keep us from much error.

But it seems to me that there is something missing from our notions modern day, of God's character that was assumed in earlier times, as being, not in antithesis to his love, compassion, tender care and positive intent toward those he made in his own image, but in antithesis to what WE consider to be his love, compassion, tender care and positive intent toward those he made in his own image.

The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

One part of our humanity that is not of itself sinful, is the necessary self-determination (No, I did not say 'self-determinism') of the individual, to, as it is said, pursue happiness, self-preservation and other important things such as service and love for God and others. But that necessary part of us, perverted by the sin nature, reduces in one's mind the power, aseity (or self-ness), sovereignty and pertinence of God within and over all fact, because of the perceived importance of our own wonderful concepts.

The following, which seems almost entirely removed from our modern lexicon, is what I wish to discuss here: In the past, there was a general attitude toward life that admitted to the comprehension of the God of such things as the Angel of Death, and what CS Lewis described somewhere as, (as I remember it), a smoky, dark, stifling, viscous, engulfing, inescapable thickness of holiness. This is not just a lightning bolt and over with.

This discussion will of necessity involve speculation. I have heard little teaching on the matter. But my intuition tells me that it has a emanant truth to it—that there is something there, that, though in the hundreds of years past was a concept dealt with superstitiously, (just as it would be now, were we to consider it true), it should nevertheless be attributional toward the God to whom we show little fear.

What I would like to hear, is scripture passages with references that sound something like that. I would also enjoy reasoning that deals with this. To me, this too, speaks to God's superiority to all things, and that all fact descends from him, and is about him. I don't know if you will get that from it, but I would still like to hear responses to the question: Where do we see this, or read of this, in Scripture. And is it something he does, or something he is?

For example, does the horror of blood sacrifices touch on this?

 

[makesends]

Does this touch on how God uses the devil for his own purposes? Death for his own purposes? Does this touch on notions of hell and death? Or is it, rather, something about God himself?

Ah! I found it! —Or something very like it. From Til We Have Faces,
“Holy places are dark places. It is life and strength, not knowledge and words, that we get in them. Holy wisdom is not clear and thin like water, but thick and dark like blood.”
― C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces

Maybe the same God we should fear, is to the reprobate death, but life and strength to those who are in Him. It is no light undertaking to pursue this God, but it is death to fail to pursue him.

 

[Arial]

In my mind, at least, this site is dedicated to discussion and debate of substantive matters, particularly of God. This forum in particular is intended for that purpose. And I do not like to speculate in such a place, but all doctrinal truth —even the most well defined by us— induces within us incomplete thoughts, speculations, intuitions. Hopefully if admitted that it is speculation can keep us from much error.

But it seems to me that there is something missing from our notions modern day, of God's character that was assumed in earlier times, as being, not in antithesis to his love, compassion, tender care and positive intent toward those he made in his own image, but in antithesis to what WE consider to be his love, compassion, tender care and positive intent toward those he made in his own image.

The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

One part of our humanity that is not of itself sinful, is the necessary self-determination (No, I did not say 'self-determinism') of the individual, to, as it is said, pursue happiness, self-preservation and other important things such as service and love for God and others. But that necessary part of us, perverted by the sin nature, reduces in one's mind the power, aseity (or self-ness), sovereignty and pertinence of God within and over all fact, because of the perceived importance of our own wonderful concepts.

The following, which seems almost entirely removed from our modern lexicon, is what I wish to discuss here: In the past, there was a general attitude toward life that admitted to the comprehension of the God of such things as the Angel of Death, and what CS Lewis described somewhere as, (as I remember it), a smoky, dark, stifling, viscous, engulfing, inescapable thickness of holiness. This is not just a lightning bolt and over with.

This discussion will of necessity involve speculation. I have heard little teaching on the matter. But my intuition tells me that it has a emanant truth to it—that there is something there, that, though in the hundreds of years past was a concept dealt with superstitiously, (just as it would be now, were we to consider it true), it should nevertheless be attributional toward the God to whom we show little fear.

What I would like to hear, is scripture passages with references that sound something like that. I would also enjoy reasoning that deals with this. To me, this too, speaks to God's superiority to all things, and that all fact descends from him, and is about him. I don't know if you will get that from it, but I would still like to hear responses to the question: Where do we see this, or read of this, in Scripture. And is it something he does, or something he is?

For example, does the horror of blood sacrifices touch on this?

I think Job chapters 38-41, where God speaks to Job applies to what you are asking for. And I think Job "saw" it.

The reason I say that is, given all the things that Job's friends had said to him about God, that were true, just misapplied; and given all the knowledge of God that Job himself expressed; it is odd that after God stops speaking to Job, Job replies in 42:5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you."

Interestinly, and in connection to Lewis' words, God spoke to Job out of the whirlwind.

 

[Eleanor]

In my mind, at least, this site is dedicated to discussion and debate of substantive matters, particularly of God. This forum in particular is intended for that purpose. And I do not like to speculate in such a place, but all doctrinal truth —even the most well defined by us— induces within us incomplete thoughts, speculations, intuitions. Hopefully if admitted that it is speculation can keep us from much error.

But it seems to me that there is something missing from our notions modern day, of God's character that was assumed in earlier times, as being, not in antithesis to his love, compassion, tender care and positive intent toward those he made in his own image, but in antithesis to what WE consider to be his love, compassion, tender care and positive intent toward those he made in his own image.

The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

One part of our humanity that is not of itself sinful, is the necessary self-determination (No, I did not say 'self-determinism') of the individual, to, as it is said, pursue happiness, self-preservation and other important things such as service and love for God and others. But that necessary part of us, perverted by the sin nature, reduces in one's mind the power, aseity (or self-ness), sovereignty and pertinence of God within and over all fact, because of the perceived importance of our own wonderful concepts.

The following, which seems almost entirely removed from our modern lexicon, is what I wish to discuss here: In the past, there was a general attitude toward life that admitted to the comprehension of the God of such things as the Angel of Death, and what CS Lewis described somewhere as, (as I remember it), a smoky, dark, stifling, viscous, engulfing, inescapable thickness of holiness. This is not just a lightning bolt and over with.

This discussion will of necessity involve speculation. I have heard little teaching on the matter. But my intuition tells me that it has a emanant truth to it—that there is something there, that, though in the hundreds of years past was a concept dealt with superstitiously, (just as it would be now, were we to consider it true), it should nevertheless be attributional toward the God to whom we show little fear.

What I would like to hear, is scripture passages with references that sound something like that. I would also enjoy reasoning that deals with this. To me, this too, speaks to God's superiority to all things, and that all fact descends from him, and is about him. I don't know if you will get that from it, but I would still like to hear responses to the question: Where do we see this, or read of this, in Scripture. And is it something he does, or something he is?

For example, does the horror of blood sacrifices touch on this?

There's someone over on CF by the name of Colo Millz that you might like corresponding with.

 

[makesends]

There's someone over on CF by the name of Colo Millz that you might like corresponding with.

I'll look him up. Thanks.

 

[Josheb]

all doctrinal truth............. induces within us incomplete thoughts, speculations, intuitions. Hopefully if admitted that it is speculation can keep us from much error.

Prove that statement, please.

 

[Josheb]

The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

Source for that?

 

[Josheb]

One part of our humanity that is not of itself sinful, is the necessary self-determination... of the individual, to, as it is said, pursue happiness, self-preservation and other important things such as service and love for God and others. But that necessary part of us, perverted by the sin nature, reduces in one's mind the power, aseity (or self-ness), sovereignty and pertinence of God within and over all fact, because of the perceived importance of our own wonderful concepts.

What if that is an illusion?

 

[Josheb]

I have heard little teaching on the matter.

How then will you measure what anyone here posts?

But my intuition tells me....

Wait a minute . Didn't I just read everyone's thoughts on the matter of divine simplicity is speculative? Am I to understand speculation is going to be measured with intuition?

....it should nevertheless be attributional toward the God to whom we show little fear.

That is not the God I know.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

The God I know could speak your existence out of existence and do with such finality that no one would have any recollection you'd ever existed to be spoken out of existence. He sets up entire nations and then destroys them, leaving them as a few lines in a paragraph in some history book..... if there's a mention at all.

 

[Josheb]

What I would like to hear, is scripture passages with references that sound something like that.

Since the op is muddled, would you please restate the question to be answered with succinct specificity that helps us help you?

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
all doctrinal truth............. induces within us incomplete thoughts, speculations, intuitions. Hopefully if admitted that it is speculation can keep us from much error.

Prove that statement, please.

Let me see. Are you telling me that sometimes you don't wonder what something means, perhaps something as basic as, "God is Omnipotent"? It happens. I don't need to prove it, though I suppose if I went to the trouble I could find plenty of error on this site, by those who draw from good doctrine and go bad.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

Source for that?

Prove me wrong?

But if I am wrong, that is another example for the veracity of the first claim you wanted me to prove, that speculation does proceed after good doctrine—or do you have a problem with Simplicity of God?

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I have heard little teaching on the matter.

How then will you measure what anyone here posts?

I was decrying my ignorance, but introducing intuition. Is intuition to be ignored altogether?

makesends said:
But my intuition tells me....

Wait a minute . Didn't I just read everyone's thoughts on the matter of divine simplicity is speculative? Am I to understand speculation is going to be measured with intuition?

You're welcome to do so, if you wish. Intuition and speculation are pretty close bedfellows. But, for what it's worth, when intuition contradicts speculation, it helps to curb enthusiasm about the speculation.

makesends said:
....it should nevertheless be attributional toward the God to whom we show little fear.

That is not the God I know

What is not the God you know? I did not say he deserves little fear, nor that we are right to show him little fear. I was disparaging about the fact that we do show him [relatively] little fear.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

The God I know could speak your existence out of existence and do with such finality that no one would have any recollection you'd ever existed to be spoken out of existence. He sets up entire nations and then destroys them, leaving them as a few lines in a paragraph in some history book..... if there's a mention at all.

Did I say different?

 

[makesends]

What if that is an illusion?

Speculation, or is that a rhetorical question, or what? Answer it for me if you would—where are you going with that?

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
all doctrinal truth............. induces within us incomplete thoughts, speculations, intuitions. Hopefully if admitted that it is speculation can keep us from much error.

Let me see. Are you telling me....

Nope. Natch. Not a chance. Don't you be trying to shift the burden of that question onto me. If you do not know the answer then say, "I do not know."

....that sometimes you don't wonder what something means, perhaps something as basic as, "God is Omnipotent"?

The word "omnipotent" means almighty, or all-mighty. God is called almighty multiple times in the Bible. Why would I wonder what almighty means? It means all mighty.

It happens.

You have yet to prove that. You've made a claim, a claim that is solely about your (lack of) understanding and assumed everyone else has the same problem. When asked to prove all doctrine induces incomplete thoughts, speculations, and intuitions, your answer is, "I cannot believe you're asking me that question. Everyone does it."

That is not proof of anything.

Stop being lazy. Think about your own words and examine them. Make the case for all doctrine inducing incomplete thoughts and speculation. if you cannot do that then consider the possibility your premise is incorrect! Why? Because religious doctrines exist to provide systematic understanding, ethical guidance, and intellectual coherence. That is, doctrines exist to do the exact opposite of what this op asserts.

I don't need to prove it...

Well, since the assertion of this op is the exact opposite of what doctrine does, I think you do need to prove the assertion and do it without ever mentioning me in any way.

, though I suppose if I went to the trouble I could find plenty of error on this site, by those who draw from good doctrine and go bad.

The op does not say people make errors. It states doctrines induces incomplete thoughts, speculations, and intuitions. What doctrines themselves do and what people do with doctrines are often two entirely different matters. What scripture states and what some people make it "say" are of two entirely different matters.

Is this op about doctrine, or what people do with doctrine?

Since the op is muddled, would you please restate the question to be answered with succinct specificity that helps us help you?

Is this op about doctrine, or what people do with doctrine?

 

[Josheb]

makesends said:
The Simplicity of God teaches us that none of what we consider his attributes is without the others. They are not parts of him. Thus we need to understand that the power, burning purity and retribution against sin is entirely in keeping with his intent and actions towards those he made in his own image, and in keeping with his love, compassion and tender care, and vice versa.

Prove me wrong?

I asked for the source. Do you have a source for those statements or not? Are they your own thoughts, or were they found elsewhere.

But if I am wrong, that is another example for the veracity of the first claim you wanted me to prove, that speculation does proceed after good doctrine—or do you have a problem with Simplicity of God?

All it proves is that you do what has been asserted, not that anyone else does so.


Is there a source for the op's commentary on the "Simplicity of God," or not?

 

[makesends]

Nope. Natch. Not a chance. Don't you be trying to shift the burden of that question onto me. If you do not know the answer then say, "I do not know."

Does, "I'm pretty sure there's something to it.", work for you?

The word "omnipotent" means almighty, or all-mighty. God is called almighty multiple times in the Bible. Why would I wonder what almighty means? It means all mighty.

Ah! My bad. I should have said "implications" of Omnipotence, not "meaning" of Omnipotence. Better?

You have yet to prove that. You've made a claim, a claim that is solely about your (lack of) understanding and assumed everyone else has the same problem. When asked to prove all doctrine induces incomplete thoughts, speculations, and intuitions, your answer is, "I cannot believe you're asking me that question. Everyone does it."

That is not proof of anything.

Did I not mention I was not trying to prove anything? My bad again.

Stop being lazy. Think about your own words and examine them. Make the case for all doctrine inducing incomplete thoughts and speculation. if you cannot do that then consider the possibility your premise is incorrect! Why? Because religious doctrines exist to provide systematic understanding, ethical guidance, and intellectual coherence. That is, doctrines exist to do the exact opposite of what this op asserts.

I'll be lazy if I please. My mind isn't as fast nor as self-confident as yours. I was hoping others could understand a little of what I was getting at and help me discuss it —like @Arial did.

Well, since the assertion of this op is the exact opposite of what doctrine does, I think you do need to prove the assertion and do it without ever mentioning me in any way

How is the assertion of the op the exact opposite of what doctrine does?

The op does not say people make errors. It states doctrines induces incomplete thoughts, speculations, and intuitions. What doctrines themselves do and what people do with doctrines are often two entirely different matters. What scripture states and what some people make it "say" are of two entirely different matters.

Is this op about doctrine, or what people do with doctrine?

Oh, once again, I forgot I was writing this to you. I should have been more precise, and said what people do with doctrines, and not what doctrines do.

Is this op about doctrine, or what people do with doctrine?

The op is written in hopes that others could submit thoughts about this one particular facet of the nature of God that is, modern day, rarely dealt with, unless disparagingly mentioned as impossible for "the God of light and love". I had not intended to debate you about the nature of my writing.

 

[Josheb]

Does, "I'm pretty sure there's something to it.", work for you?

Ah! My bad. I should have said "implications" of Omnipotence, not "meaning" of Omnipotence. Better?

Did I not mention I was not trying to prove anything? My bad again.

How is the assertion of the op the exact opposite of what doctrine does?

Oh, once again, I forgot I was writing this to you. I should have been more precise, and said what people do with doctrines, and not what doctrines do.

The op is written in hopes that others could submit thoughts about this one particular facet of the nature of God that is, modern day, rarely dealt with, unless disparagingly mentioned as impossible for "the God of light and love". I had not intended to debate you about the nature of my writing.

It's a simple request. A statement was made asserting all doctrinal truth induces within us incomplete thoughts, speculations, intuitions. This is a problematic claim for multiple reasons. If proof cannot be provided, then I'd like to see some evidence to support the assertion. Something beside the existence of posters speculating. Whether trying to prove something or not an assertion was made. If it's baseless then why make it? If it is thought veracious them make that case.

How is the assertion of the op the exact opposite of what doctrine does?

I have already answered that question.

The word "doctrine" literally means a principle, or body of principles, a position in a branch of knowledge or system of belief designed to establish truth and prevent speculation! Likewise, the word "truth," literally means a fact or belief that is accepted as true and that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. The word "all" means all. That word literally excludes all possible alternatives. As written, the op claims facts and truth induce incomplete thoughts and speculation

Perhaps the reason all doctrinal truth is thought to induce speculation is because the words "all," doctrine," and "truth" are not correctly understood but I am willing to grant the benefit of the doubt, so I asked for proof. Thrice asked. Thrice unanswered. If it can be proven all doctrinal truth induces incomplete thoughts, speculation, and/or intuitions then I would like to read that proof. If there isn't proof, then I'll settle for some (rational) evidence. I expect, but do not require or demand, any person making claims to be able to provide a reasonable and rational case for their beliefs. If neither then I'd appreciate either a clarification of the claim so that it is something that can be evidence (and is not, therefore, a baseless claim), or an "I don't know," or "I can't prove it," or something along the lines of acknowledging the paradox that occurs when claiming all doctrinal truth induces speculation because the claim absent evidence is entirely speculative, baseless speculation.

Oh, once again, I forgot I was writing this to you.

Stow that dross. Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.

Does, "I'm pretty sure there's something to it.", work for you?

No, but it is a better response than onus shifting.

I should have been more precise, and said what people do with doctrines, and not what doctrines do.

Yes, that would have been a better wording because that might actually be correct. That correct begs the question....

Why do people take what is, by definition, intended to prevent incomplete thoughts, speculation, and intuition and do the opposite?

.

The op is written in hopes that others could submit thoughts about this one particular facet of the nature of God that is, modern day, rarely dealt with, unless disparagingly mentioned as impossible for "the God of light and love".

And I will gladly post posts of posts on the matter once the matter has been correctly articulated, the veracity of the position asserted established, and a topical thesis functionally defined. Is what the op states about the (supposed) "Simplicity of God" a personal opinion or was that content borrowed from some other source? If it's a readily accessible source, I'd like to know so I can read the source myself. Presumably, anyone hoping others would submit thoughts about this (supposed) aspect of God will gladly cite their source(s) for the edification and illumination of the readers. Or should I proceed as if the "facet" is invented for the sake of this thread?

I had not intended to debate you about the nature of my writing.

Then don't. Just answer the questions asked to the best of your enabling without ever mentioning any other member and move the conversation forward.


Doctrinal truth exists to identify facts and truth, not speculation. What people do with doctrinal truth may have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of or content of any doctrinal truth. So..... in a goodwill effort to move this conversation topically forward, why do people take what is intended to preclude incomplete thoughts and speculation and do the opposite?

 

[Josheb]

I'll be lazy if I please.

And I will post accordingly whenever that occurs, no matter who does so.

My mind isn't as fast nor as self-confident as yours.

Baloney. While the op may have been poorly worded, it took confidence to post, and speed is irrelevant because the posts do not go anywhere. Anyone can take whatever time is needed (hours, days, months) to respond.

I was hoping others could understand a little of what I was getting at and help me discuss it —

Consider my inquiries an aid, a goodwill effort blessing you, helping you to better form your inquiry for the mutual benefit of all.

Philippians 2:4 ESV
Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Ephesians 4:29 ESV
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

And keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. If, however, looking out for your interests, your edification, and grace are not of interest, then just say so. I can proceed accordingly. Some of us here are better apologists than Charlie Kirk (rip). On your better days you are one of them. Do not ever again put yourself done to me and don't ever do it to avoid valid inquiry. Just answer the questions asked, deal with what's posted as long as it is topical and valid, and become a better apologist, a better exegete, a better DBer.

like @Arial did.

And she can be commended accordingly. Different posters bring different matters to bear on every op. That is what makes us better at discussions.



I would like to know where this version of divine simplicity came from. If it is entirely a personal opinion, then say so. If it was garnered from elsewhere, I'd like to know from where. Now that the matter of doctrine begetting incomplete thoughts and speculation has been clarified (would that have happened had I not asked? ), why do people do that when doctrine is designed to prevent that from happening? These are valid requests/inquiries. Think about them. Take whatever time is necessary to provide a cogent response.

Proverbs 27:17
Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.


Make me work for it. I'll return the favor .

 

[makesends]

It's a simple request. A statement was made asserting all doctrinal truth induces within us incomplete thoughts, speculations, intuitions. This is a problematic claim for multiple reasons. If proof cannot be provided, then I'd like to see some evidence to support the assertion. Something beside the existence of posters speculating. Whether trying to prove something or not an assertion was made. If it's baseless then why make it? If it is thought veracious them make that case

That statement was corrected. At your suggestion, I subsequently said it was our use of doctrine that goes to incomplete thoughts, speculations and intuitions. In my opinion, that assertion needs no proving—I think it self-evident pretty much all day long, for anyone who wonders why he wonders this and that about God and life and the universe.

makesends said:
How is the assertion of the op the exact opposite of what doctrine does?

I have already answered that question.

The word "doctrine" literally means a principle, or body of principles, a position in a branch of knowledge or system of belief designed to establish truth and prevent speculation!

Yet, it also forms a stepping stone for us to begin to wonder about the why and how of those principles. Now, if you assert that Doctrine is designed to prevent speculation, maybe you can prove that it is designed to prevent further speculation. THAT is the sort of speculation I thought I had been talking about. When I consider that God is omnipotent, I think on the implications; they are not all yet established in theology and philosophy. And the implications go far and wide, built upon one another. Speculation happens; thank God some people realize they are speculations, instead of proven fact.

Likewise, the word "truth," literally means a fact or belief that is accepted as true and that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. The word "all" means all.

Forgive me, I'm not following you; I don't remember why you are quoting the word, "all", here. Later: my bad again. I see you are talking about me saying that all doctrinal truth induces speculation etc. That we do use it and wonder about it, again I say, seems to be self-evident—at least to me.

That word literally excludes all possible alternatives. As written, the op claims facts and truth induce incomplete thoughts and speculation

As I corrected it, the claim now, (and for some time now), is that facts and truth are used by some to produce incomplete thoughts and speculation.

Perhaps the reason all doctrinal truth is thought to induce speculation is because the words "all," doctrine," and "truth" are not correctly understood but I am willing to grant the benefit of the doubt, so I asked for proof. Thrice asked. Thrice unanswered. If it can be proven all doctrinal truth induces incomplete thoughts, speculation, and/or intuitions then I would like to read that proof. If there isn't proof, then I'll settle for some (rational) evidence. I expect, but do not require or demand, any person making claims to be able to provide a reasonable and rational case for their beliefs. If neither then I'd appreciate either a clarification of the claim so that it is something that can be evidence (and is not, therefore, a baseless claim), or an "I don't know," or "I can't prove it," or something along the lines of acknowledging the paradox that occurs when claiming all doctrinal truth induces speculation because the claim absent evidence is entirely speculative, baseless speculation.

I clarified. What is more, so far, you haven't even denied the veracity of my [corrected] assertion. You only went to the assertion that doctrine is only intended to prevent speculation. I would deny the sound of that assertion, because I don't see that doctrine is intended to prevent further speculation, that people engage in when considering the implications of any particular doctrine.

Yes, that would have been a better wording because that might actually be correct. That correct begs the question....

Why do people take what is, by definition, intended to prevent incomplete thoughts, speculation, and intuition and do the opposite?

Some of us, because we find God fascinating and magnificent beyond understanding. We want to know where the implications of that doctrine go.

But can you prove that doctrine is, by definition, intended to prevent further incomplete thoughts, speculation and intuition? Or does good doctrine not, rather, open up a world of thoughts one wonders about, whether by intention or not? Certainly, you would not say that good doctrine is exhaustive.

And I will gladly post posts of posts on the matter once the matter has been correctly articulated, the veracity of the position asserted established, and a topical thesis functionally defined. Is what the op states about the (supposed) "Simplicity of God" a personal opinion or was that content borrowed from some other source? If it's a readily accessible source, I'd like to know so I can read the source myself. Presumably, anyone hoping others would submit thoughts about this (supposed) aspect of God will gladly cite their source(s) for the edification and illumination of the readers. Or should I proceed as if the "facet" is invented for the sake of this thread?

The op doesn't seek to establish one way or the other the veracity of the thesis (which by the way was not that Doctrine induces speculation—that was only a sideline). I was hoping for maybe someone with more complete thoughts on it than myself, given my inability to even articulate it sufficiently well.

Doctrinal truth exists to identify facts and truth, not speculation. What people do with doctrinal truth may have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of or content of any doctrinal truth. So..... in a goodwill effort to move this conversation topically forward, why do people take what is intended to preclude incomplete thoughts and speculation and do the opposite?

Not all do. Some just want to know more about truth. And some seem to throw up smoke screens whenever more is mentioned.