Molinism and Calvinism - making an idol out of understanding?

I have just finished reading Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keathley. It is a book on Molinism with critiques of Calvinism and Arminianism, though focusing more on Calvinism. 

Here are a few thoughts.

I found its critique of Calvinism very fair and helpful. What I like about Molinism is that it gives proper weight to both the sovereignty of God and to human responsibility (I prefer this term to free will, or human autonomy). What I don't like about Molinism is its attempt to explain how the two work together. ie all the stuff about middle knowledge, possible worlds, counterfactuals etc. There are two things I don't like about this. First, I think holes can be picked in the explanation, and people like James White have done so. But what I really don't like is that the focus can then be on the explanation of the facts rather than the facts themselves. Fortunately Keathley spends relatively little time on the Molinist explanation, and more on the Biblical truths.

This set me thinking.  Do we make an idol out of wanting to understand? Let me explain.

It seems to me that the Bible is very clear on two things (it is of course clear on lots of things):

1. God is absolutely sovereign and we are utterly dependent upon Him for our salvation

2. The attitudes we have, the decisions we make and the actions we take matter. They are real and effect our own life, the lives of others, and they matter to God. In particular, on the matter of salvation, the Bible is perfectly clear that we need to repent and believe.

Now when James White, or someone else, attacks Molinism the target of their attack is the middle knowledge stuff, not the two basic Biblical tenets out lined above. Where does Calvinsim go wrong? Or first of all what are the strengths of Calvinism? They lie in its respect for the Bible and seeking to do justice to what it says, and its affirmation of the sovereignty of God, the effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, and the personal application of it. Where does it go wrong? It seeks to establish an intellectual framework for explaining how God's sovereignty works in the world. Hyper-Calvinists end up in some very odd (and sometimes repugnant, not to say unbiblical) places.

"Molinism" is right to assert the two truths of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, but I believe it is a mistake to make an intellectual framework a key part of it. Why do I believe God is sovereign? Because the Bible says He is. Why do I believe what I do with my life matters? Because the Bible says so. I do not believe these things because of some intellectual framework. Molinism having the framework means the focus goes on the framework when what counts is proclaiming and living the truth of God's word.

In the case of Calvinism the intellectual framework can easily lead to denial of truths that the Bible states clearly. I have not read much Arminian theology, so I will not say anything about that.

Now all this is not to say we should not seek to understand how things work, nor am I saying that there is no benefit in seeking to understand, but we must not make an idol out of it. The basis for all understanding is the word of God, not any intellectual framework.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart

    and lean not on your own understanding;

⁶ 

in all your ways submit to him,

    and he will make your paths straight. (Prov 3:5,6)

Romans 1:26,27 and the current debate on homosexuality

Romans 1:26,27 and the current debate on homosexuality

Each day I write a blog which is a commentary/observations/thoughts on the Bible. I have recently just started on Romans. Not unnaturally this involves Romans Chapter 1, and in particular Romans 1:26,27. It cannot have escaped your notice that homosexuality and Christianity are a hot topic in certain circles these days, and these two verses in Romans are pretty central to that debate. I write the material for the Bible Blog several months before it appears, so it will be January 2016 before Romans 1:26,27 appear there. However, I have put the material together (it will cover three days in the Bible Blog) into a single post here in case anyone finds it helpful. This essay has three parts:

• The Biblical and cultural background
• Comments on the text itself
• Some thoughts of a more pastoral nature

While this essay is quite long there are many who have done much more in-depth work, and from whom I have learnt a lot. At the end there will be a list of references to some of their material.

Biblical and cultural background

We now come to the currently most inflammatory verses in Romans 1. Now I will say quite a lot about these verses, but we do need to remember that homosexuality is not the the prime focus of what Paul is teaching, it is one example of the manifestation of sin in humanity. However, it is such a hot topic and one where there is much false teaching in the church that it needs to be addressed in some depth. However, there is an awful lot more that can be said that I can say here. If you want a full account of these matters, with in-depth analysis of all the Bible teaching then I would recommend the works (books, podcasts, debates on YouTube, blogs etc) of Sam Allberry, Jame White, Michael Brown, and Robert Gagnon. Some references will be found at the end.

First we need to remember what the positive Bible teaching on sexuality is. It is given in Genesis 1 and 2, and this was endorsed by Jesus, Mark 10:6-9 (just for those who think Jesus had nothing to say on homosexuality), and sex is for marriage between a man and a woman. Sex in any other context is dangerous, is sinful and is destructive (the evidence for which is all around us). It is worth remembering that in Leviticus 18 where homosexuality is one of the forbidden acts there are a whole bunch of forbidden heterosexual acts. Furthermore, having sex before marriage was regarded as a most serious sin (Deut 22:20,21). We do well to remember that when it is accepted as the norm in our society, and even regarded as not that serious a matter by many Christians. Why do I draw attention to all this? Because the charge is often made that the Bible has it in for homosexuals. The truth is that the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman and nowhere else. The Bible treats all violations of this with equal seriousness, and homosexuality is one sin among many.

Now let’s look a little at the cultural background, and this mostly comes from Keener’s commentary. Homosexual activity was common in the Mediterranean world,but not in Judaism. The Jews looked down on it and regarded it as a Gentile sin, reinforcing their view of Gentiles as less worthy. Most homosexual activity was bisexual and the predominant form was pederasty, ie an adult male having sexual relations with an adolescent boy. They would commonly marry a woman later in life. However, homosexual relationships between adult males were not unknown (contrary to what some would have you believe). Homosexual behaviour was looked down on by some, others regarded it as a matter of personal preference. However, Jewish people were almost all against it. The attitude of people in general doesn’t seem that different from today! It may also be the case that the state of most homosexuality being promiscuous, with stable relationships being rare is not that different today either. With the recent legalisation of “same-sex marriage” the picture that is presented is of nice loving homosexual couples, just the same as heterosexual couples except both are men, or both are women. This may not be an accurate representation of the totality of the situation. Indeed, Evan Davies (a BBC reporter and presenter who is gay) recently got in trouble for saying that gays are generally very promiscuous. Now I am very cautious about arguments from either side on this, but we should not take things at face value.

Anyone interested in looking at these matters in more details should go to the works of the authors mentioned earlier.

Comments on Romans 1:26,27 itself

“God gave them over ...”. Again we have this phrase which appears several times in Romans 1. A common argument today is that people are “born gay”, sometimes people ask “if homosexuality is wrong why did God make me gay?” Well first of all the matter of being “born gay” is to say the least very contentious, and certainly not everyone who practices homosexuality is “born gay”. However, taking this verse talks of God giving people over to shameful lusts. It also talks about homosexual relations being unnatural. Again, this deeply offends our society. So what is the Bible saying? Well sex is intimately connected to reproduction. Reproduction is not the only purpose of sex, but it is a very important one! Homosexual sex clearly cannot lead to reproduction. So what is the Bible view of someone having homosexual feelings? It is that these are a symptom of the fall, they are a symptom of our sinful nature. Now, remember that Paul is using homosexuality as one example. All (or virtually all, but probably all)  of us have a corrupted sexual nature. If you have heterosexual feelings of lust for someone other than your wife that is a symptom of your fallen nature. So homosexuals are not special in this sense.

Now revisionists say that Paul was talking about pederasty and so is not condemning stable same-sex relations. This is a specious argument produced by people whose only aim is to justify sin. Even if Paul did have pederasty in mostly in mind that is no argument for saying the Bible is OK with stable same-sex relations. There is not a single positive word in the Bible about homosexuality.

Moreover, verses 26 and 27 speak of women having relations with each other, and of men having lust for one another. So there seems to be a mutuality here, and it is certainly not clear from the text that Paul only has pederasty in mind.

He then says that they “received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Now what does this mean, and what about the undoubted offence it could cause a gay person? Well we see here the effect of sin. We often think of sin purely in terms of what we do and of it being bad. This is all true of course, but there is more to it. When we sin we become a slave of sin, as Jesus said (John 8:34). Sin takes over our lives like a cancer, and this is the effect of all sin. Heterosexual lust has the same effect, hatred has the same effect, lying has the same effect.

So what else can we say? Two things at least. First to reiterate, homosexuality is being used as an example by Paul. The majority of sexual sin is heterosexual in nature. All sexual sin causes immense pain. Heterosexual sin leads to the murder of millions of babies in abortion, homosexual sin does not. Heterosexual sin is predominantly (though not entirely) responsible for the sex trade and trafficking of women (and children) for sexual purposes. Heterosexual sin is primarily responsible for the increasing sexualisation of our children. I could go on, but I won’t. The Bible teaching is that anything outside of God’s plan of sex within the marriage of a man and a woman is sin and is destructive, both on those involved and on society as a whole.

Secondly, we need to remember where all this is leading in Romans and that is to God’s gift of salvation in Christ for all. Reading these verses and writing this stuff my thoughts are the sooner we get to the latter part of chapter 3 in Romans the better!

There are those who look at this thinking “you homosexuals are a reprobate bunch of sinners”. Well yes they are, but so are we, so are you. So is anyone without Christ, and in Chapter 2 Paul will turn to those who have such an attitude. Next I will make a few pastoral comments because I realise that what the Bible says here is uncompromising and cuts to the quick.

Some comments of a more pastoral nature

So what if you do experience same-sex-attraction (SSA)? Where does all this leave you? Well, if this is you well done for sticking with this! Let me say a few things, let me also refer you to the Living Out website, which you might find helpful.

As I have said before, Paul is talking about homosexuality here as one example of sin. Later he will talk about salvation and that salvation is open to all, and all here does mean all. So what if you experience SSA, does that exclude you from the kingdom of God? In itself it does not, in the same way that feelings of heterosexual lust do not. What matters is what we do in response to these feelings. If we indulge or entertain these thoughts, whether SSA or heterosexual lust we are heading for trouble, but having to resist temptation is, sadly, a normal part of the human condition.

What about “pray the gay away”, or being set free from homosexual feelings? Well with all sins we may be set free from them suddenly, either at conversion or after some special encounter with the Lord, but this does not happen with all sins, nor even with most sins. For the most part being “set free” is a gradual process and involves learning self-control. This is the consistent teaching of the Bible. Sadly parts of the church have sometimes promoted the idea that all people who come to Christ who experience SSA will be miraculously “set free”, and if they aren’t there is something wrong. This doesn’t happen with any other sin, so why should homosexuality be any different?

Society seeks to define us by our sexuality. This is a lie, while sexuality is important, we are not defined by it. We are defined by the fact that God created us and by the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again for us.

What about counselling or psychological help? Well this might be helpful in some cases. There are moves in the US, and I think in the UK, to ban counselling of this nature. This seems very strange to me. If someone has SSA feelings and would rather not have them then counselling of some form might help, why deny it to them? Especially at a time when society is quite happy to promote pumping someone full of hormones and carrying out mutilatory surgery on parts of their body which are in perfect working order. Why one is OK and the other not is beyond me.

Finally, I have listened to people like Sam Allberry and other friends of his on Unbelieveable, and to Rossari Butterfield. These are all people who experienced SSA, the latter was a promoter of gay rights and a lesbian who then turned to Christ. What strikes me about them is the depth of commitment and love for Jesus that comes over, the joy in their salvation that comes over.

The gospel offers freedom for all people, and all of us are in equal need of that freedom.

Sources

Is God anti-gay - Sam Allberry

Can you be gay and Christian? -  Michael Brown

The Same Sex Controversy - James White

Romans (New Covenant Commentary Series) - Craig Keener

Secret Thoughts of a Most Unlikely Convert - Rosaria Butterfield

Robert Gagnon

Living Out

Gay Christianity Refuted - James White

David Gushee Reviewed and Refuted - James White

Sex and Relationships

Sex is very important. Why is that, if that isn't too obvious a question? It is because sex is to do with relationships. Now consider how the world's approach to sex is so different from the Biblical approach. On the one hand there is the attempt to divorce sex from relationship. We see this in things like pornography or prostitution or casual sex. Then there is the current headlong rush of western societies to seek to legitimise same sex marriage. Why do they say they are doing this? Because, according to the current world view, two people should be allowed to express their “love” for each other.

What does the Bible say? The biblical view is that sex must be confined for one place and one place only, and that is the marriage between one man and one woman. Why does the Bible place this restriction? It is all to do with relationships. First, it is only in the fully committed relationship of a man and a woman that sex will be beneficial to the relationship, bringing joy, comfort and pleasure.

Now we come to the second reason, and a very important one, in any other relationship sex will be destructive, not constructive, to the relationship. We all (or at least any sane person) know that there are relationships where sex should not play any part at all. Examples are between a parent and a child, between brothers and sisters etc. But there are plenty other examples as well. Sex should not play any part in a relationship between two men or between two women. The gay rights people are very keen on saying that two men or two women have the right to love each other. Yes they do. There should be deep relationships between men and between women, but sex must not come into it, it will only be destructive. Likewise, sex must not come into any relationships between men and women outside marriage. In 1 Timothy 5:2 Paul instructs Timothy to treat younger women like sisters and older women like mothers. Likewise, other men are to be treated like brothers and fathers.

The reason that society's approach to sex is so wrong and must not be supported at all by the church is that it is utterly destructive to relationships of all sorts in society. Conversely, the reason why we should follow God's instructions on sex is that His ways are the only ways that are conducive to good relationships, at all levels.

The church and homosexuality - the real issues

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that homosexuality is a key issue facing the church today. There was the whole same-sex marriage debates a year or so ago in the UK. In the US there is currently a big controversy over the state of Indiana and its introduction of a religious freedom act. Then there are debates within the church or Christian community around such questions as “Is the church failing gay Christians” as a recent episode of Unbelievable was entitled. It seems that in these debates we are often missing the key point.

Let’s start with “Is the church failing gay Christians?” First, why don’t we have debates about the following questions:

• Is the church failing adulterers?
• Is the church failing fornicators?
• Is the church failing liars?
• Is the church failing thieves?
• etc

Now considering this highlights two issues: one for the “gay community” to consider, and one for the church to consider. Behind the question “is the church failing gay Christians” is the implicit demand that the church say that homosexual activity is OK, but it is dressed up as “you are not treating me properly”.

For the church we need to realise what our mission is. Jesus came to die for sinners, He died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. If the church does tell society that “homosexual activity is OK” then we are truly failing people. A central part of the good news is to help people come to a place of repentance so that they can receive forgiveness and new life from Jesus.

In the US there are increasing issues over whether Christian businesses should be forced to actively participate in “gay weddings”, the Indiana controversy is the latest manifestation of this. Similar issues have arisen in the UK. As with the “Is the church failing ...” question, we again seem to be missing the point, or only considering one of the important questions. The concern is focused on religious freedom. However, as the church we should be concerned to tell people what sin is and what the remedy is. I would very much prefer to be free, but my rights are not actually the central issue. There is a lot of shallow thinking about Jesus. Jesus said He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but this manifestly does not mean that He had nothing to say about what is right and what is wrong, and even who is right and who is wrong. Look at the gospels and you will see that he frequently made “judgements” on what is right and what is wrong. So as the church we should want to tell society that homosexual activity is wrong, but we do not do so in order to condemn the world, but in order to give people the chance to repent and turn to Jesus, to receive forgiveness and to receive new life. This is often portrayed as being bigoted or self-righteous, but this should not be so. We are all sinners, it is not singling out any one group, and even if we already know Christ there is still much sin in our own lives that needs to be dealt with. The mission of the church is declaring good news to sinners, and this is where as the church we are missing the mark. We so often preach a “nice” gospel, or a “prosperity” gospel, or an “environmental” gospel. We need to preach the gospel that Jesus and the apostles preached.

Having said that the question of religious freedom is important. Let’s look at the matter of different religions. The secular response is to say that all religions are essentially the same. Any true Christian, Jew or Muslim knows that this is complete nonsense. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences, and if you say the differences do not matter you are saying that what we believe does not really matter, and that is showing respect for no one. However, it is far better that we live in peace with each other, it is far better that we have sensible dialogue with one another.

Now if we go back to the situation of preaching repentance, we can see the real challenge. The gospel is offensive. No one likes being told they are living their lives the wrong way, no one likes being told that there is no way we can save ourselves. Now that society has decided that homosexuality is OK it is not surprising that there is conflict between the church and society.

So the true challenge for the church is how do we preach a gospel that calls on people to repent. Changing the gospel, or rather abandoning the gospel, which is what many are doing, is no answer at all, and is no help to anyone. One part of the answer is that we preach that all need to come to repentance. The gospel says that all have sinned. Whatever label we put on ourselves, or someone else puts on us, we are included in that “all”. Equally, all can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. This is what we need to preach.

Why the New Testament says little about the virgin birth

Christmas is fast approaching and very likely there will be one or two newspaper articles or news items questioning the veracity of the virgin birth. I firmly believe in the virgin birth, above all because the Bible says that this is what happened (Matt 1:18,19; Luke 1:34,35). The objection that virgin births don’t happen is one of the weakest arguments there is against it. The Bible tells us that the Son of God was born of a virgin. Now if God is the creator of all things and the sustainer of all things, if He is the Lord Almighty, then a virgin birth should be well within His capabilities!

However, there is one point the sceptics make that does, on the face of it, seem to carry more weight.This is that the New Testament makes very little of the virgin birth. Only two of the gospels record it, and there is virtually no mention of it in the rest of the New Testament. This paucity of mention of the virgin birth supposedly gives credence to the view that it arose as a myth. I have been thinking about this argument and consider it to be totally false.

So let’s think about it a little. There are two key events in the New Testament that go completely against all human experience. One is the virgin birth, the other is the resurrection. The New Testament does indeed say little about the virgin birth, on the other hand the resurrection is absolutely central to everything the New Testament says, it is at the heart of the gospel. Why this difference?

Well consider this. Can I “prove” the virgin birth? No. The only grounds I have for supporting the virgin birth is that the Bible says this is what happened. I can argue that it is perfectly reasonable and consistent with the divinity of Jesus Christ. In fact I believe that a virgin birth is the only way that Jesus could have come into the world. But all these are just arguments, they are not proof as such. In the same way the early church could not prove the virgin birth. If it happened today then I suppose some DNA test might prove something, but it would be very interesting to see what God’s DNA is!

Now think about the resurrection. Yes I can still argue that it makes sense and is reasonable and consistent with everything else the New Testament says, and is indeed essential and the only way things could happen. But there is something else I can do, I can offer loads of evidences. Back in the first century the early church could offer even stronger evidence. The tomb was empty, neither the Jews nor the Roman authorities could produce a body or point to a non-empty tomb. Many people were direct witnesses to the risen Christ, and these witnesses could be questioned. Ie they could offer demonstrable evidence that the resurrection occurred, something they could not do with the virgin birth.

And that is why the New Testament is full of stuff about the resurrection, but says little about the virgin birth. Both are true, both are vital, but only one of them had evidence that could be presented to the world.

Ezra and Calvinism

Below is a blog that will appear as part of my Bible Musings blog in about 7 or 8 weeks time. I got sidetracked with some thoughts on Calvinism while studying Ezra, and all this at 6:30 in the morning. This seemed an appropriate topic for my Thoughtful Resources blog, so here it is.

This is inspired by Ezra 8:1-14

We now get a list of those who returned with Ezra. It amounted to about 1500 men and included 40 Levites. We need to realise how few of the Israelites actually returned to Jerusalem in total (approx 50 000). God had opened up the way of "salvation" but few chose to take it. In a sense it is no different today. On the cross Jesus made the way of salvation, but still few choose to take it.

Can I go on a wee aside here on Calvanism. Calvanism is often summarised by the acronym TULIP. The L stands for limited atonement, this means that Christ died on the cross not for the sins of all but for the sins of the elect. (This is just a rather crude summary, please accept all its imperfections, there isn't time to go into the whole doctrine of Calvinism!) The strengths of the arguments for this view are mainly twofold. The first is that it stresses the personal aspect of Christ's sacrifice. It wasn't just a general thing, Christ really did die for you and for me, personally. We weren't just included in a general collection. It was a deliberate act of love. In fact, it would be far better for "limited atonement" to be replaced by "specific atonement". Limited atonement paints God as mean and nasty, that is most definitely not what the doctrine is saying. It is stressing the particular, the personal, and the effectiveness of Christ's death and resurrection. However, TUSIP doesn't have the same ring as TULIP, so we are stuck with limited.

The second aspect is the effectiveness of the cross. Under an Arminian view the cross provided the means or the way of salvation, but it doesn't actually save (again apology for deficiencies in this summary). Calvinism stresses the effectiveness, Christ's death on the cross actually did win my salvation, not just the possibility of my salvation.

So what has all this got to do with Ezra? You may well ask! Well I find many aspects of Calvinism attractive and true to the Bible, but here, in Scripture, we see that God has made a way of salvation but few have chosen it, and there was much urging and persuading trying to get people to take up the way (see Zechariah 2, also remember Jesus' parable on the banquet). So the Arminian perspective is not as unbiblical as Calvinists sometimes seek to make out! 

It seems to me that both are declaring part of the truth, and they cannot see how if their part is true the other bit can be true as well. Or, rather, if the other bit is true, how can their bit be true. So we have the "war" between Arminianism and Calvinism. Can we square the circle? Well maybe we can, a little. God knows the beginning from the end, so when Christ died on the cross He knew who He was dying for (by the way, I am not going into Molenism here). Yet from our perspective we hadn't made the decision yet. You see part of the problem is eternity. God is eternal (and that means much more than just going on forever), we are temporal. We see one event happening after another, God sees them all at once. Now I am fully aware that there are holes in what I have just said, but it us 6.30am in the morning and I have to go to work (what a wonderful way to start the day, thinking about the cross!). But what I am confident of is that some of the contradictions are not real. Eternity and all its consequences are too big for us to understand, and we need to remember the limited perspective from which we see things (1 Cor 13:12). We need to be absolutely  bold about what we do see, but we also need to beware of thinking that we see everything.

Making (non)sense of predestination.

Predestination is an issue that divides some Christians. It is probably fair to say that the majority ignore the issue, and who can blame them? However, others get extremely uptight about the matter. There are three main camps: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism (or middle knowledge). I am not a theologian nor philosopher (and no doubt that will show), so if you want real in-depth insight on these matters you need to go elsewhere, but I will seek to offer a few thoughts that some might find helpful.

The crux of the matter is the apparent conflict between the sovereignty of God and human freewill. Calvinism stresses the sovereignty of God and Arminianism stresses human freewill. Molinism seeks to do justice to both, and William Lane Craig is perhaps the most well-known proponent of Molinism.

The problem arises when we see things through only one lens. God is sovereign, it is His will that will prevail. The Bible is abundantly clear on this point, from beginning to end. The issue arises when we view things through that lens alone, for then it seems to negate freewill. It can also be accused of making God the author of evil, and turning us into little more than automatons. (By the way, the freewill problem is not confined to theology, it is a general philosophical problem.) If there is no human freewill then that goes against the glory of God. For the Bible teaches us that we were made in His image, and the whole goal of the Bible is a people who freely choose to love the Lord ("I will be their God, and they will be my people"). So Calvinism can easily slip into taking away the glory of God that it seeks to proclaim.

While the Bible is clear on the sovereignty of God it is equally clear that our attitudes and our actions matter. There are also numerous examples where God's actions are influenced by our actions, and even cases where the Bible presents God as having changed His mind. So we do have freewill and how we live our lives really does matter. The danger arises when if make this the overriding lens through which we view things, for then it can easily end up negating the sovereignty of God, making God subject to us.

Molinism seeks to do justice to both, respecting freewill while fully honouring the sovereignty of God. So that is something very much in its favour. However, it does seem to fall into philosophical and theological traps. Reasons to Believe had a couple of very good programmes on it recently, and James White makes frequent valid criticisms.

So where does that leave us? My approach is this. Take the Bible as your guide. Believe everything it proclaims. So we should believe we were chosen before the creation of the world, we should believe that our decisions matter. 

What about seeking to understand it. Well we need to recognise that we cannot fully understand it, but that does not mean we cannot understand anything. Nor does it mean that we should not seek to understand anything. What it does mean is that we learn to recognise when we are coming up against the limits of our understanding. The problems arise when we seek to push beyond these limits.

Is this a cop-out? No, it is actually philosophically and mathematically reasonable. Godel has a famous incompleteness theorem that states that in any logically consistent system there will be some things that are true but that cannot be proven to be true. Now that most definitely does not mean that we throw logic out of the window. It does mean that we recognise the limits of logic. In fact, logic is very useful for atheists and evolutionists can sometimes be the most illogical people on earth.

The whole Christian world view (more generally theistic world view) is that the universe was created by someone or something outside of the universe. So we should not actually expect to be able to understand everything (Deut 29:29).