Perhaps I am simply being arrogant, but I think there is a better answer. As for “mystery,” I do not see that this necesarily represents an area of our understanding that is clouded due to sin. I agree with you that “mystery” is inevitable with GOD at some point as He cannot be comprehended, in the strict sense of that word.

My problem rests in two things: 1) first, in declaring “mystery” in an objective sense far too early. It is akin to the arrogance of a scholar scouring the Bible for an answer to a particular question and, in that moment when he has run out of answers and sits defeated and dejected, raises his nose from the page to insist that it must be impossible for anyone to discover it. It’s a “mystery.” Well, he can speak for himself, but it hardly stands that this represents a “mystery” to everyone, as hard as it might be to imagine that anyone could discern what he failed to or even what a handful of brilliant minds failed to uncover. 2) second, in the love of “mystery” as a bright patch to cover a portion of the tattered quilt of error. I do not think you resort to this, but when certain people find themselves at the end of the tether of their impoverished ideologies, rather than admit that they are staring into a blank wall, they declare a holiday and call it “mystery.”

I know that you legitimately want to preserve, as do I really, the profound nature of our faith and an expansive vision of our LORD at the heart of it. Your use of “mystery” does not strike me as the latter kind and hardly bears any resemblance even to the former. I think, rather, that you (with a pressing and delicate schedule of responsibilities) have simply repeated the conviction of men whom you trust.

So, in hopes that I do not stink of pride, I simply wish to say that I choose to take the path less travelled by and perhaps the difference it makes will be more pleasing to our precious Christ.

Thanks for your gracious yet not uncritical comments. I always welcome any sharpening from the brethren. Yet you are correct that we two have some unfinished business elsewhere on this blog. If only there were 48 hours in a day!

It seems that you think my use of the term “mystery” above was unwarranted. It also seems, and I could be wrong, that you view mysteries as areas of our understanding that are clouded due to sin but which may be cleared up after more study, reflection, sanctification, and prayer. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

I presently relate mystery not merely to man’s fallen mind but to his finiteness. That is, since God and his ways are infinite and since all of divine and created reality are interrelated, then I cannot see how the human mind will every get its hands around everything about God and his ways. Have you already read James Anderson’s Paradox in Christian Theology (Paternoster, 2007)? Paul Helm has written a positive review: Paradox and Mystery. I’d be interested to hear your opinion of the book.

Feel free to offer a criticism of Murray’s explanation of the “pychogenetic problem” connected with Adam’s fall if you wish.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

But this comment is not intended as the crack of a starter’s pistol to launch into polemics on this issue until we have finished our previous exchange on GOD’s desires, whether they are in confict or no. I have no desire to distract you from that discussion with a conversation that would be equally absorbing (if not more so). My point here is simply to say that one can be a fervent Calvinist and a compatibilist and yet disagree with important aspects of your analysis of human nature and freedom, of “ability,” of the impetus of depraved choices and GOD’s relation to them and of the pre-fallen nature of our first human parents so that the “mystery” of much of this is helpfully dissolved.

Others, no doubt, will give their warm and convicted agreement with what you have said here and I welcome their reasons and point of view. Indeed, I readily admit that you have paraded by an admirable column of Scripture references which appear to clinch the point. I ask only what I imagine Dr. Gonzales would ask with a full heart, that our brothers and sisters who may read this think more deeply on these questions and examine the Scriptural teaching in totality, not remaining comfortable with “mystery,” which signifies a theological blind spot, but for the sake of ourselves and others to responsibly discern the proper balance of teachings.