Our Limitations (by Ed Smith.)        Cosmologists generally believe that time began along with the other spatial dimensions. Then, from a human perspective, we can't help asking what things were like before there was time; but we can't use that word "before" at this point. If one tries to imagine time having no beginning, one certainly can't do that either. It is a classic paradox showing the limits of the human mind. Another has to do with space. Does it end? If so, what is behind that? Now we can't use the word behind, though we can't imagine an end without a behind. The issue of space can be resolved by imagining our universe as a 3 dimensional object within a higher dimensional space. We can imagine it because we can imagine 2 dimensional beings living on the surface of a sphere in our space; such a "sphere space" is finite. However, though we can imagine a way to resolve this paradox, we still see that our minds are limited in truly grasping this as we would like. I can't really visualize 4 dimensions of space directly, I can only imagine what it would be like through analogy. In theology, we naturally run into things beyond the scope of our finite minds. The stubborn insistence by some that such things be understood results in many of the most harmful, appalling and erroneous doctrines. Such stubborn insistence is original sin: pride and arrogance--a wish to be an equal to God. And, of course, that is the true sin; not all mistakes are innocent and confined to the intellect. For example, the complaint I've most frequently heard against the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is hard to understand; that it doesn't make sense. It would be arrogant of me to think that I can accurately and directly visualize the very nature of God. However, I can imagine the Trinity quite nicely through analogy. Most of us can visualize ourselves as trinities or at least a duality of spirit and body. Even my body can be viewed as a person by itself, though not a very animate one. Together I am still one and I have been made in the image of God. If we must have an image of everything which occurs to us, then image by analogy must be used in this case, since it is the only way to reconcile the clear teaching of the deity of Christ with the clear teaching of monotheism in the Bible. Another fine set of examples has to do with reconciling the absolute foreknowledge of the Creator with some kind of autonomy and individuality of the creature. This actually leads, in part, back to time and to plans made outside of time. Apart from the obvious incomprehensibility of time and its absence, why should I think I can understand how to make such a creature as myself? Some insist on understanding this. An extreme Arminian denies God's foreknowledge. An extreme Calvinist may deny any form of real individual will in a person and often creates a picture of a God who seems mean and arbitrary. As arrogant as I may be in many ways, I am content to leave it as an unresolved paradox having to do with a matter beyond the scope of my finite mind. Let's put ourselves in our proper place. --Ed