Two Sorts of Knowledge of God in Scripture

[py3ak]

Here is a quote from the Institutes: Book 1, Chapter 6, Ford Lewis Battles translation:

"There is no doubt that Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the rest of the patriarchs with this assistance penetrated to the intimate knowledge of him that in a way distinguished them from unbelievers. I am not yet speaking of the proper doctrine of faith whereby they had been illumined unto the hope of eternal life. For, that they might pass from death to life, it was necessary to recognize God not only as Creator but also as Redeemer, for undoubtedly they arrived at both from the Word. First in order came that kind of knowledge by which one is permitted to grasp who that God is who founded and governs the universe. Then that other inner knowledge was added, which alone quickens dead souls, whereby God is known not only as the Founder of the universe and the sole Author and Ruler of all that is made, but also in the person of the Mediator as the Redeemer. But because we have not yet come to the fall of the world and the corruption of nature, I shall now forego discussion of the remedy.
My readers therefore should remember that I am not yet going to discuss that covenant by which God adopted to himself the sons of Abraham, or that part of doctrine which has always separated believers from unbelieving folk, for it was founded in Christ. But here I shall discuss only how we should learn from Scripture that God, the Creator of the universe, can by sure marks be distinguished from all the throng of feigned gods. Then, in due order, that series will lead us to the redemption. We shall derive many testimonies from the New Testament, and other testimonies also from the Law and the Prophets, where express mention is made of Christ. Nevertheless, all things will tend to this end, that God, the Artificer of the universe, is made manifest to us in Scripture, and that what we ought to think of him is set forth there, lest we seek some uncertain deity by devious paths."

If I understand correctly, Calvin is saying that in Scripture there is set forth a knowledge of God as Creator, which is clearer then that revelation made in creation, and that this revelation of God as creator is vital in order for us to be able to come to a true conception of God as creator, inasmuch as that revelation contained in creation, while clear enough to leave us without excuse, is not effectual in bringing us to a knowledge of God as creator. This knowledge of God as creator is not saving. My question is this. If Calvin is correct (you can give me your opinion on that too), then would it be accurate to say that an unregenerate person could arrive at a correct knowledge of God as creator through the instrumentality of the Word? If so, would this have any bearing on God being the God of the Jews and Christ's comments to the Samaritan woman in John 4? In other words, Christ could say in such a blanket way that the Jews worshipped God, not because all the Jews were regenerate (worshipped by the Spirit of God -Philippians 3:3) but because they had been instructed in the true knowledge of God as creator. What do you think? Is Calvin right? And, Can the unregenerate have a Scriptural knowledge of God as creator? And, does that explain John 4:22?

 

[Ianterrell]

This is interesting. I'm reading Herman Witsius Economy of the Covenants and he talks about what kind of knowledge fallen man has of God. Its interesting. In Roman's Paul writes that what can be known about God is known to them. What does that mean?

 

[py3ak]

Paul,

Was your post answering my questions, or Ian's?

Does anyone else want to take a stab at answering the questions?

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:76abfc8949]And, Can the unregenerate have a Scriptural knowledge of God as creator?[/quote:76abfc8949]

What is knowledge? and what is "scriptural" knowledge?

Calvin says that Scripture is only given for the elect. God giving us the Bible is an act of Redemption, not meant for the reprobate. But it does not follow that it wouldn't carry secondary usages for the reprobate. If the devil can know something about God by the Scriptures, then the unregenerate certainly can as well.

Depending on how you use the word "know", if you use it as Paul says, justfied true belief, then I would assume that they could also have correct belief about God as Redeemer, if they actually beleived it. But that doesn't mean it would be saving knowledge. The other 1 or 2 components of saving faith wouldn't be there if they were unregenerate.

Paul

 

[py3ak]

I'm not sure if my questions were unclear, or if I'm overlooking something in the replies, but so far I don't feel that the questions have actually been answered.

Let me try to restate them.

1. Is Calvin correct in saying that there is a knowledge of God-as-creator available in Scripture that is distinct from a knowledge of God-as-redeemer?

2. Subsidiary to this, what sort of knowledge would this be? Obviously, it is not the kind of knowledge mentioned in John 17:3, id est, saving knowledge. But would this knowledge be of such a character that one who possessed it could be described as knowing what he worships, even though he may not worship in spirit and truth or by the Spirit of God? (See John 4:22-24, Philippians 3:3).

3. To amplify the last part of question 2, does Calvin's construct of a non-saving knowledge of God-as-creator that is more specific and correct than what we have in general revelation have any bearing on the interpretation of John 4:22 "Ye worship ye know not what: we [the Jews, I think] know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews"

Either Paul, if I'm missing something in one of your posts, please point it out.

 

[a mere housewife]

I don't have any answers, but I think it's an interesting question. Is it legitimate to say that the Jews (even the unregenerate) had a knowledge of God as creator that was better defined than that of the Gentiles, and that that special -although non-salvific knowledge- made them able to be called worshippers of God, though they did not know Him savingly?

 

[py3ak]

Since I am really curious about this, I continue in my fanatical campaign to get a response to this post. Thus, I am bringing it back on to the daily list.

 

[rembrandt]

notitia
assensus
fiducia

Is that what you are talking about?
Do you understand this part?

 

[py3ak]

[quote:15b6f28363]
notitia
assensus
fiducia

Is that what you are talking about?
Do you understand this part?
[/quote:15b6f28363]

Yes, I believe I understand that part.
No, that is not what I'm talking about. Those are the components, as I understand it, of saving faith. What I am talking about is specificaly labeled by Calvin as not being saving.

Here is what Calvin says in Book 1, ch. 6, Beveridge translation immediately prior to the section I quoted in my original post. Perhaps this will make clear of what I am speaking.

"Therefore, though the effulgence which is presented to every eye, both in the heavens and on the earth, leaves the ingratitude of man without excuse, since God, in order to bring the whole human race under the same condemnation, holds forth to all, without exception, a mirror of his Deity in his works, another and better help must be given to guide us properly to God as a Creator. Not in vain, therefore, has he added the light of his Word in order that he might make himself known unto salvation, and bestowed the privilege on those whom he was pleased to bring into nearer and more familiar relation to himself. For, seeing how the minds of men were carried to and fro, and found no certain resting-place, he chose the Jews for a peculiar people, and then hedged them in that they might not, like others, go astray. And not in vain does he, by the same means, retain us in his knowledge, since but for this, even those who, in comparison of others, seem to stand strong, would quickly fall away. For as the aged, or those whose sight is defective, when any books however fair, is set before them, though they perceive that there is something written are scarcely able to make out two consecutive words, but, when aided by glasses, begin to read distinctly, so Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till then, lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows us the true God clearly. God therefore bestows a gift of singular value, when, for the instruction of the Church, he employs not dumb teachers merely, but opens his own sacred mouth; when he not only proclaims that some God must be worshipped, but at the same time declares that He is the God to whom worship is due; when he not only teaches his elect to have respect to God, but manifests himself as the God to whom this respect should be paid.

The course which God followed towards his Church from the very first, was to supplement these common proofs by the addition of his Word, as a surer and more direct means of discovering himself."

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:2f75ed4ecf]Those are the components, as I understand it, of saving faith.[/quote:2f75ed4ecf]

components of saving [i:2f75ed4ecf]knowledge[/i:2f75ed4ecf]. How don't these steps of saving knowledge answer your question? Restate your question in light of that.

Every part of these elements can be argued to be [i:2f75ed4ecf]intellectual[/i:2f75ed4ecf] elements. You can believe 'a' and yet not believe 'a'. But it definitely dedends what 'sence' of believing or knowing that he is talking about.

[quote:2f75ed4ecf]2. Subsidiary to this, what sort of knowledge would this be? Obviously, it is not the kind of knowledge mentioned in John 17:3, id est, saving knowledge. But would this knowledge be of such a character that one who possessed it could be described as knowing what he worships, even though he may not worship in spirit and truth or by the Spirit of God? (See John 4:22-24, Philippians 3:3).[/quote:2f75ed4ecf]

How is this not related to the elements of saving [i:2f75ed4ecf]knowledge[/i:2f75ed4ecf]?

Paul

 

[rembrandt]

Also, how is faith (in general) different from knowledge? Can it be seperated [i:2b1488ea4f]at all[/i:2b1488ea4f]?

 

[py3ak]

[quote:8ebfdfd21c]
Every part of these elements can be argued to be intellectual elements. You can believe 'a' and yet not believe 'a'. But it definitely dedends what 'sence' of believing or knowing that he is talking about.
[/quote:8ebfdfd21c]

I am not sure I am following you here. I am also not sure what you are getting at with faith and knowledge. Are you trying to distinguish them or to show that they are indistinguishable? Does John distinguish them in I John 4:16 "And we have [u:8ebfdfd21c]known and believed [/u:8ebfdfd21c]the love that God has for us"?

The basic thing is this. Calvin says there is a knowledge of God-as-creator that is clearer and fuller than what is available in creation, and which is also distinct from a saving knowledge (which must be of God-as-redeemer). Is this true or false? If true, is it available to us today? If true and available, is it found in Scripture? If true, available, and found in Scripture, what are the effects of this knowledge? If true, available, and found in Scripture, what are the implications of this kind of knowledge for the interpretation of John 4:22 ("You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.&quot?

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:3e5f03dfee]Calvin says there is a knowledge of God-as-creator that is clearer and fuller than what is available in creation, and which is also distinct from a saving knowledge (which must be of God-as-redeemer). Is this true or false?[/quote:3e5f03dfee]

I think the knowledge of God-as-Redeemer always assumes a prior knowledge of God-as-Creator. Our knowledge of God-as-Redeemer always enhances our knowledge of him as Creator, right?

Scripture reveals God not only as Redeemer, but also as [i:3e5f03dfee]Creator[/i:3e5f03dfee]. Knowledge of God-as-Creator as revealed in [i:3e5f03dfee]Scripture[/i:3e5f03dfee] is far greater than knowledge of God-as-Creator as revealed in [i:3e5f03dfee]creation[/i:3e5f03dfee], for the simple fact that it clarifies our knowledge from creation (special revelation).

I don't think your question makes sence. Why isn't creation saving knowledge? It is, except not since the fall. So, knowledge of God-as-Creator as revealed in [i:3e5f03dfee]whatever place[/i:3e5f03dfee], both is and is not saving, depending on how you look at it and take things into acount (i.e. the fall).

Am I anywhere close to what you are talking about?

Paul

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by rembrandt]

 

[py3ak]

[quote:878646f069]
I think the knowledge of God-as-Redeemer always assumes a prior knowledge of God-as-Creator. Our knowledge of God-as-Redeemer always enhances our knowledge of him as Creator, right?
[/quote:878646f069]

Right on both counts. The question, though, is about those who stop at a knowledge of God-as-creator. Jews indiscriminately are described in John 4:22 as knowing whom they worship. Since the description is indiscriminate, I conclude that it means Jews generally, which would include many unregenerate Jews. The Samaritans generally worshipped they knew not what. They had not attained to a right knowledge of God-as-creator. The Jews, even though many were unregenerate, generally knew whom they worshipped --but not in a saving sense.


[quote:878646f069]
Scripture reveals God not only as Redeemer, but also as Creator. Knowledge of God-as-Creator as revealed in Scripture is far greater than knowledge of God-as-Creator as revealed in creation, for the simple fact that it clarifies our knowledge from creation (special revelation).
[/quote:878646f069]

Right on.


[quote:878646f069]
I don't think your question makes sence. Why isn't creation saving knowledge? It is, except not since the fall. So, knowledge of God-as-Creator as revealed in whatever place, both is and is not saving, depending on how you look at it and take things into acount (i.e. the fall).
[/quote:878646f069]

Knowing God-as-creator exclusively is not salvific. Before the Fall, man did not need salvation --he needed continuance in the righteousness in which he was originally created. After the Fall, we need to know God-as-redeemer in order to salvation, because we needed redemption from our objective guilt. So I would say that knowledge of God-as-creator is never saving.


[quote:878646f069]
Am I anywhere close to what you are talking about?
[/quote:878646f069]

I think we may be getting there. Although for a while I was wondering if anyone except my wife (a mere housewife) understood what I was saying. Maybe this is why I'm not getting a lot of replies to what seems to me like a fascinating minor issue.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:b934b0b3e4]Knowing God-as-creator exclusively is not salvific. Before the Fall, man did not need salvation --he needed continuance in the righteousness in which he was originally created. After the Fall, we need to know God-as-redeemer in order to salvation, because we needed redemption from our objective guilt. So I would say that knowledge of God-as-creator is never saving.[/quote:b934b0b3e4]


True. I just meant that it [creation- general revelation] was efficacious for prefall man, in order to reach a proper knowledge of God in order to be in right standing with him as Creator.

Paul

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Reuben, by your u2u request:

I think you have accurately read and understood Calvin. And I think he is right. [quote:c380bcc4bc]would it be accurate to say that an unregenerate person could arrive at a correct knowledge of God as creator through the instrumentality of the Word?[/quote:c380bcc4bc] Yes, meaning this: by using the ordinary means of language--in this case found in Holy Writ--an unregenerate man could attain to an accurate intellectual apprehension of the biblical conception of who GOD is. As Paul highlighted "Calvin and spectacles," the Bible [i:c380bcc4bc]exegetes[/i:c380bcc4bc] nature. This in distinction to a whole world and history FULL of false god-concepts. The Bible acts like a kind of "confessional statement" to [i:c380bcc4bc]define[/i:c380bcc4bc] which God is the True God. This is like the knowledge that the DEMONS have-accurate in many respects--but simply to know this is not the same thing as having SAVING knowledge (Rembrant said this too). [quote:c380bcc4bc]would this have any bearing on God being the God of the Jews and Christ's comments to the Samaritan woman in John 4?[/quote:c380bcc4bc] Partially, let me explain: Jesus is using "we (Jews)" in a general way to distinguish them as a class from the Samaritans and other heathen. Paul speaks to the same subject when he asks, "What advantage has the Jew?" (Rom 3:1). They had access in the Word to the truth respecting God, including first his identity and character, and man's relationship to him. In particular to John 4, they even knew the manner (outwardly) to approach God to do him proper reverence (OT worship). [quote:c380bcc4bc]would this knowledge be of such a character that one who possessed it could be described as knowing what he worships[/quote:c380bcc4bc] Only very generally. And not if we are talking individual and heart knowledge. Because without Spirit illumination he can only know the form, not the substance. According to the effect of the clarity in which and light by which the person sees God, he will either LOVE and worship him more truly, or he will HATE and refuse to worship him, preferring death.

 

[py3ak]

[quote:f7463f9a51]
True. I just meant that it [creation- general revelation] was efficacious for prefall man, in order to reach a proper knowledge of God in order to be in right standing with him as Creator
[/quote:f7463f9a51]

Rembrandt,

I don't mean to pick nits, but even in the Garden general revelation was not enough for a right standing with God. God obviously gave Adam special revelation as well in forbidding him to eat the fruit of the one tree. I think there was probably more special revelation as well, but we know for sure that there was that much.

Bruce,

Thanks for your comments. I particularly liked your phrase "the Bible exegetes nature."


[quote:f7463f9a51]
Paul speaks to the same subject when he asks, "What advantage has the Jew?" (Rom 3:1). They had access in the Word to the truth respecting God, including first his identity and character, and man's relationship to him. In particular to John 4, they even knew the manner (outwardly) to approach God to do him proper reverence (OT worship).
[/quote:f7463f9a51]

Thanks for the cross-reference, I had not thought of that. It seems then that there is definitely a knowledge of God greater than that in natural revelation, in that it is clearer and fuller, but is nonetheless not saving. In the time of Christ the Jews could be described as having this kind of knowledge. So the next question is, is there a similar class of people today? Do we have people in our generation who have an accurate knowledge of God-as-creator but do not know God-as-redeemer? To state the same thing in a third way, Who (if anyone) today corresponds to the Jews of Christ's time?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Not generally of course, but related to this specific thread

[quote:86cd7e17b9]Who (if anyone) today corresponds to the Jews of Christ's time?[/quote:86cd7e17b9] People who in some way obtain their God concept from the Bible are looking in the right place. How much they grasp depends greatly on how much of the revelation they subscribe to believe and the light given by the Holy Spirit.

Without proposing a one-to-one correspondence, I would offer that true Christians and nominal Christians considered together might be so designated.
1) Because they possess in some degree the full revelation of God in the Scriptures (modern Judaism correspondes fairly to the Samaritans who denied the Scriptural authority of all but the Pentateuch).
2) But I have to add that Jesus' indicated that there existed as well a contrast between an acceptable and an unacceptable manner of WORSHIP. So, where God's worship is profaned even by so-called Christians there you have correspondence to [i:86cd7e17b9]idolatrous[/i:86cd7e17b9] Hebrews.

What do you think about that?

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:4f214b4162]Rembrandt,

I don't mean to pick nits, but even in the Garden general revelation was not enough for a right standing with God. God obviously gave Adam special revelation as well in forbidding him to eat the fruit of the one tree. I think there was probably more special revelation as well, but we know for sure that there was that much.[/quote:4f214b4162]

Special revelation is Redemptive revelation. There was no need of it before the fall, atleast according to Calvin. I've never heard of what you said, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Paul

 

[py3ak]

Rembrandt,

If you define special revelation as intrinsically redemptive, then obviously Adam had no special revelation. But general revelation, that is, what may be understood of God through an examination of creation and providence would not give Adam the direction "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat". I am taking special revelation in the sense of information given by God that was not communicable through creation and providence. It seems that J.P. Boyce would agree:

"It is manifest that the knowledge obtained from these various sources must be abundant to teach man the simple facts upon which rests his duty to God; namely, that there is a God to whom he owes existence, and consequent reverence, service and love, and whose greatness and goodness enforce this obligation; also to show him that that duty has not been discharged, and that he has not the disposition to discharge it; and consequently to render him uneasy in his relations to God, and anxious to appease him, and secure some assurance of his pardon and approval. It has also been thought by many, that through reason alone man attains the conviction of immortality and of a future state of rewards and punishments.

However abundant may be the information thus conveyed to man, it is nevertheless clear that his knowledge in these directions must still remain very imperfect.

[b:3eab15ca29]This must have been true of man even in a state of innocence.[/b:3eab15ca29] His finite nature and the finite conditions which surrounded him must still have left him ignorant upon many desirable matters. It is natural, therefore, to believe that, in that condition, he received direct communications from God, which are properly esteemed revelations."
J.P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, chapter III.

Bruce,


[quote:3eab15ca29]
Without proposing a one-to-one correspondence, I would offer that true Christians and nominal Christians considered together might be so designated.
[/quote:3eab15ca29]

I agree. I also like your statement about contemporary judaism corresponding to the Samaritans. I am not sure with regard to your statement that something is indicated about the manner of worship. Just reading John 4 I don't pick up on that. Could you point it out more closely?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Generalities must always be qualified

I'm just saying that one can't simply take a modern situation and superimpose it over a past one and draw minute comparisons. You end up forcing too many details into the mold.

In John 4 the FACTS of worship loomed very large. "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship" (v. 20). From the Scriptures (not just the Samaritan Pentateuch, but the whole OT) the Jews knew the FORM of worship that God required. It was part of his revelation about himself. It was not SAVING knowledge, but it was accurate at to the outward form. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that the Samaritans, who acknowledged only part of Scripture, literally didn't know what they worshiped. And they even had some truth about God in special revelatory form!

So when I answered your question (trying to be careful not to imply too much) I said that compared today, "Christians" as a class possess the truth of Scripture; others--including Jews who (like the old Samaritans) do not accept the [i:64df840b26]complete[/i:64df840b26] revelation of God--do not. So, in the language of John 4, "We [Christians] know what we worship."

But is that the whole story? What about "Christian" churches where God's Word is ignored--in all kinds of areas, and especially in governing worship! Can people in those churches be said truly to know what they worship? In Jesus day, there was ONLY one place and one manner of worship. When it was being conducted according to precept (as it was in that day), [i:64df840b26]outwardly[/i:64df840b26] God was being honored by the fact that the Jews were worshipping him according to what they had learned in revelation. But in Israelite history Jehovah had been worshiped according to golden calfs and sundry abominations. And Jews had worshiped many false gods as well. When God was exiling his people several centuries before Christ, it was sarcasm to say, "Israelites know what they worship, but the heathen do not."

So the real issue as far as I see it is not mere possession of the Word, but the degree to which people pay attention to it as government--government of FACTS, of ETHICS, of WORSHIP. Generalities must always be qualified.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:f8f19b1d03][i:f8f19b1d03]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:f8f19b1d03]
[quote:f8f19b1d03]
Special revelation is Redemptive revelation. There was no need of it before the fall, atleast according to Calvin. I've never heard of what you said, but correct me if I'm wrong.
[/quote:f8f19b1d03]

no its not and yes there was.

I don't think Calvin is saying what you attribute. I think he is saying that the only way one learns of salvation is through special and not general revelation. [/quote:f8f19b1d03]

Okay, let me go back and read then... also, I was sure I read that in B.B. Warfield's 'Calvin and Calvinism'. But I'm probably wrong...

Paul

 

[py3ak]

Bruce,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I had always understood the Samaritan woman as sort of trying to introduce a rabbit trail by the statement about worship, and that Christ refuses to go down it.

I understand what you're saying --but given that we are only talking about a non-salvific knowledge I am not at all sure that a knowledge of the acceptable way of approaching God as sinners is bound up in a relatively accurate view of God-as-creator.

However, you are right in the main point, I think, that we cannot apply a one-for-one parallel.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Did he refuse to go down it?

Reuben,
We're "rabbit-trailing" the main thrust of your inital post a little here by expounding upon the John 4 text, but...
I think its pretty clear from verse 19-26 that Jesus perceived this woman's basic question (better perhaps than herself) to be how she could "get right" with God, which meant coming to him (approach/worship) without rejection/damnation. [quote:37439aefe7]I am not at all sure that a knowledge of the acceptable way of approaching God as sinners is bound up in a relatively accurate view of God-as-creator.[/quote:37439aefe7] I could take this statement two different ways, which makes it a bit confusing. Taken at face value, I ask how can one begin to approach God in worship when he knows next to nothing about him, beginning with the most fundamental concepts like God the Creator? Isn't that the absurdity Paul the Apostle noted in Athens (Acts 17)? I mean, he can, but its irrational. But if you are saying that apprehending the latter does not necessitate inclusion of the former, I completely agree. The latter is a more basic kind of knowledge. Natural-revelation-knowledge (Rom. 1) can be improved upon, or made more definite. Scripture is the only reliable source for all levels of religious truth.

Back in my first post I did not support the idea that the statement in John 4 speaks [i:37439aefe7]directly[/i:37439aefe7] to the matter of God-as-creator, but rather [i:37439aefe7]indirectly[/i:37439aefe7]. That is because the main subject in John 4:22 is worship. Jesus' general statement about the Jews as a people had reference to their being the custodians of the Scriptures. Jesus even acknowledges their dilligence in searching the Scriptures for in them they thought they had eternal life (John 5:39). "How to Worship" is farther along the line of someone's rational investigation than "What to Worship." This person may be a "seeker," "trying" the Bible to get some "religious ideas." He may even intellectually grasp the nature of God as the Bible spells it out. But he won't be an acceptable worshiper of him (John 4:24-25) unless the Spirit draws him, even if he progresses into worship concepts spelled out in the Bible.

 

[py3ak]

Not A Rabbit-Trail at All

Actually, Bruce, I was hoping to get to some analysis of John 4 at some point, as I was hard pressed to think of any other Scriptures that support Calvin's thesis.

Sorry if I was unclear in my statement. What I am driving at is that you can have a knowledge of God-as-creator without knowing how to approach Him. Acknowledging, for instance, the transcendence and independence of God, [i:995ecd5d11]if that is all I know about Him[/i:995ecd5d11], gives me no help in understanding how a lowly sinner such as myself could ever come into His presence. Without a knowledge of God-as-redeemer it seems that the primary, if not the exclusive, effect of fuller knowledge of God-as-creator would be dread and awe.


[quote:995ecd5d11]
But he won't be an acceptable worshiper of him (John 4:24-25) unless the Spirit draws him, even if he progresses into worship concepts spelled out in the Bible.
[/quote:995ecd5d11]
Amen to that. It's a glorious thing that the Father has sought worshippers to worship Him correctly, and to that end has made great discoveries of grace to their souls.