Important Comments on the Ministry of Hugh Ross, Ph. D.

by Robert A. Herrmann Ph. D.
2 April 1999 Last Revision 11 JAN 2012

After conducting personal research on the subject, I have the following conclusions relative to the scientific background and teachings of Hugh Norman Ross, Ph. D, the President of Reasons to Believe, Inc. I do not intend, in any manner, to present any personal attack upon Hugh Ross as an individual. My only concern is with the doctrine presented by this organization. All of the relative material used in this research is published and publicly available. I will state my conclusion first and then give some justifications. [It is very important, however, that if you consider these findings significant that you continue your own research and actually determine the correctness of my conclusions for yourself.]

Jesus partially describes "false prophets" as they will appear throughout the times of the New Testament church.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

It is not difficult to find other Scriptural characteristics for false prophets or false apostles. In 2 Timothy 3, Paul describes the condition of society that will mark the "last days." The description is exactly that of our present times. Described in 2 Timothy 3:5 are those

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Paul also gives direct characteristics that will aid in identifying false prophets or false apostles.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. . . . For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. (II Corinthians 11: 3-14)


The teachings of this ministry exemplify, as described above, the teachings of false prophets or false apostles.

[1] Relative to scientific matters, when compared with other scientists who have contributed significantly to the relation between science and theology (for example see temp), the secular scientific achievements of Hugh Ross can only be considered as minimal in character. With only 5 published articles in established secular scientific journals, the last being in December 1977, it is clear, to me, that Ross and his associates could not possibly be aware of the somewhat complex modern (1985 - present) scientific techniques used to analyze such speculative theories as the standard model for the evolution of our universe or to analyze specific theological doctrine. Because of these facts, one should consider very, very carefully any scientific pronouncements or claims made by members of his organization, and definitely not accept them based simply upon a claimed, but not substantiated, scientific authority.

[Note: The author of this commentary is a member of a group of scientists who present models that uphold recent creation. This "Reason to Believe" ministry tends to denigrate the scientific background and achievements of members of this group. If you have not done so, you may wish to compare this author's "1. Professional Biography" and "10. Published Papers" with those of Hugh Ross. This will help you to determine the truthfulness of any such assertion.]

[2] Within the writings of this organization, statements have been made that are not historical fact, and in the tried and true fashion of false apostles, this ministry mixes fact with fiction. This is especially so when there are published or recorded claims that certain statements or concepts appear in the Bible when in reality the Bible is either silent on the matter or the Bible states otherwise.

[3] Re-interpretations of many literal Bible statements and non-biblical additions to the attributes of God as practiced by this ministry are the exact methods that have been and will continue to be used by all false prophets and false apostles. Proudly, they all claim or will claim that they have a form of special interpretation or revelation. For example, as used in Genesis 1, there is the significant word hayah. This word has a wide semantic range. In the Scriptures, its meaning for thousands of years has been "to exist" "to come into being," "cause to be made or done."

But we are told by this ministry that in Genesis 1 there is one place and just one place where its meaning has been universally misunderstood. The special revelation accorded this ministry is that in Genesis 1:14 the word must be translated as "to appear," meaning to simply become visible to an observer. As they interpret it, we have "Let there appear lights in the firmament" rather than the accepted and consistent creation command "Let there be (come into existence) lights in the firmament."

The Rapid-Formation Model shows that for any known cosmology, including the Big Bang cosmology they accept, that the entire universe is produced in a physical sense over what may appear to be billions of earth years, but in actually no measurable earth-time would elapse. Thus, the stars come into being just as the Bible states, at a moment during creation day-four.

Relative to the Bible and the New Testament church, a certain basic method has been used since 130 AD. The method used is as follows: Strict Bible terms are re-interpreted in terms of the language and comprehension of a particular social or political unit or the like. The same language is used for the many claimed additions or alterations to the Divine attributes. Then the group makes certain claims, with respect to the notions associated with such a group of individuals, that the Bible confirms the basic hypotheses they accept or, at the least, comprehend. For an example of a clever and extreme case, please consider Alice Bailey's book, "From Bethlehem to Calvary, The Initiations of Jesus" (Lucis, New York, 1937). She claims to use the Scriptures and to establish that Jesus actually went through the occult initiation processes and became one of the adapts called "Masters."

[4] "General revelation" - the claim that by observing nature one can determine that a "supernatural" god or even gods exist with certain attributes. This approach has been utilized for many thousands of years. Such displayed attributes must be limited in character, however. Of course, one is almost always led to these attributes by the claims of others rather than direct personal investigation. Humankind worships a god or gods with hypothesized attributes. Clearly, if no god actually exists with such attributes, then such worship would be akin to idolatry from a Christian perspective. As shown in [6], this ministry's specific statement that general revelation will lead to salvation is untrue and exceptionally dangerous. Only through the very special and strict procedures stated in the Scriptures can an individual who claims to be a Christian attain salvation.

[5] This ministry uses these linguistic "Bible altering" techniques and presents arguments in terms of the prevailing "science or science fiction" orientation of many members of our present "Star Trek" generation. They take some scientific notions and stretch Biblical terms or completely alter their meanings to conform to these "revealed" scientific pronouncements. Their rather flimsy scientific concepts are their "god" and these take precedence over clear Biblical teachings.

This ministry makes absurd statements that non-verifiable speculative science is fact. This ministry actually rejects almost all of the creationary statements made throughout the Bible and, yet, claims that they are establishing the Bible creation scenario. They have added enormously to the Bible via pure speculation, such as claiming that "God has increased the complexity of life on earth by successive creations over billions of years while miraculously changing the earth to accommodate new life" (emphasis added), and claim that such Biblical speculation is fact. [Later, I'll direct you to scientific models for Biblical creation that require no such level of speculation and satisfy the Bible's statements exactly.]

It is enough to say that on this very website is a mathematical model that shows that such speculative theories as used by this ministry have no actual scientific merit since there are infinitely many of them that can be used to verify all possible observations. Relative to Scriptural interpretations, the claim that others may have had, but probably did not have, such "revelations" does not alter the statement that special extrabiblical knowledge is required for such re-interpretations, knowledge that does not illuminate doctrine, but rather completely alters the original doctrine presented to the church during the first century. It is not the purpose of this commentary to discuss such a reliance upon speculation since from my experience such a re-interpretation in terms of modern scientific terms is most likely to be but a popular overt procedure that is actually hiding a very dangerous covert response - a response that may not be fully appreciated by the "Reasons to Believe" ministry.

[6] This ministry's stated views on physical death, sin and especially salvation are extremely dangerous and demonstrate clearly that this doctrine is that of false prophets or false apostles as described above. To state that "The plan of salvation as stated in the Bible can be seen through observation of the universe about us," that Nature is like the "sixty-seventh book" of the Bible, and to claim that human beings fallible observation of physical-system behavior should be "on equal footing" with the written infallible revelations of the Scriptures is blasphemy since these statements are totally false.

As shown by the General Grand Unification model (GGU-model) as presented within many of my writings, while in this physical mode, we lack the mental ability to fully detail how our universe actually develops. Not only are we fallible but we are not a higher-intelligence, although many prideful scientists think they are.
The Hebrew word "death" (muwth and forms based upon it) appears 791 times in the Old Testament. It is not disputed that in almost all cases it means physical death. Of major significance is its appearance in Genesis 2:17, and 3:3, 4. In "Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament," (1980), p. 96, it is stated that in Genesis 2:17 this word means to die physically. This is what the Genesis 3:3, 4 must then logically imply. "Apparently there was no death before this time" p. 97. The Ross ministry claims that for these three occurrences only "spiritual" death is the correct interpretation.

They are hardly the first to present this interpretation. However, in all but a very few cases within the Old Testament, the term refers directly to "physical" death. Further, figurative applications of a word do not precede the basic meaning when first introduced. God is talking to Adam and this is the first time the concept of death is Biblically mentioned. If two or three applications of this word are taken as a figure for "spiritual death," then they occur well after the notion of physical death has been properly understood and demonstrated. Once comprehended, it is a trivial fact that sin figuratively leads to spiritual "death"

God describes the meaning of the term "death," as He previously stated, by describing it in Genesis 3:19 ". . . until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (NIV) This must be the meaning He intends in Genesis 2:17.

From the same dictionary, we find that "Sin and/or the presence of spiritual death required a covering, but man's provision was inadequate; so God made a perfect covering in the form of a promised redeemer (Gen. 3:15) and a typological covering of animal skins (Gen. 3:21)" p. 97. There can be no doubt that this private Ross interpretation is incorrect and that physical death must also be indicated by these three verses. This egregious error invalidates this ministry's entire doctrine. (Below I give another example as to how some add to he Scriptures unwarranted concepts and even new terms to give a "new" revelation as to the meaning of this term in Genesis 2:17.)

But was there "physical death" prior to the appearance of sin? (The appearance of the "spirit" of sin is not specifically mentioned until Genesis 3:1.) The simplest and most straightforward interpretation of Scripture indicates that, in a certain sense, this may be the case. Obviously, plants "died" in a specific manner since they were the food source. But, they are not Biblically alive. They do not contain the "breath of life." So, the idea of "death" needs to be related to specific forms of death. At the time God first spoke muwth (Genesis 2:17), Adam did not have "knowledge of good and evil." Adam did not know the "language of sin," language that entices an individual to follow this spirit's leadings.

Since the Scriptures are silent on the matter, one can assume that this spirit itself was not present in the garden until Genesis 3.1. Logically, the phrase "thou shalt surely die" could not have been a warning to Adam if he did not know what the "to die" means. However, it is also possible that God did communicate to Adam what this specific notion of "death" would signify. The Scriptures are silent relative to this possibility.

The Bible is clear that the entire "earth" prior to the appearance of sin was a remarkably different place than we observe today. ". . . cursed is the ground for thy sake." Genesis 3:23 clearly indicates that this "curse" was throughout the entire land. Prior to Adam's sin of disobeying God's direct command, the physical laws and processes are considerable different than those we observe today. Thus, non-human animal death prior to sin, for specifically described earth-bound entities, might occur but it could not be the "cursed physical death" this ministry claims occurred for millions of years prior to the fall. The Bible gives no indication how non-human animals would have died. However, if it occurred at all, then the Bible does imply what such pre-sin death entailed. It was not, as this ministry claims, the painful, violent, putrid physical death we observe today. This could hardly be what occurred in the garden of Eden, in Pleasantvill.

To show how additions are made to the clear Biblical understanding, there is the claim that "what God was talking about when Adam was warned that if he eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then he would die means an early death. Of course, the word "early" is not in the Bible. This addition comes from the interpretation, also not implied by the Bible, that Adam and Eve were not immortal. This "early death" interpretation contradicts those scholars who wrote the above Nelson's Expository Dictionary. Such Biblical additions are not allowed. But, as mentioned this is exactly what false prophets do. They take words from the Bible and either stretch their meaning or alter it entirely to meet their goals. They claim their new interpretations are fact and, usually, that they have special knowledge from God not accorded to others. They don't state that what they preach is speculation and that each individual should consult the Holy Spirit before they accept their conjectures.

The "death and resurrection" aspect of the Gospel message as preached by Paul is explicitly stated in 1 Corinthians 15. Relative to death, this chapter is totally concerned with cursed physical death. Consequently, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:21-23, at the least, refers to cursed physical death. Paul states even more explicitly the relationship between this type of "physical death" and "sin." He writes, "On this account, as by one man sin into the world entered, and by sin death, and thus to all men death passed. . . " Romans 5:12 (Thomas Newberry, The Englishman's Greek New Testament).

This ministry denies the clear logical implication that "cursed physical death" came to the "world" through Adam's sin and, from this general physical death, specific physical death was passed onto humankind. This statement should be easily understood without any further explanation or comment. The meaning of the word "death" most certainly includes cursed physical death. [Note: I do not deny the fact that the word Paul uses here and translated "world," the Greek word kosmos, has various contextual meanings such as system, earth, humankind, etc. There are other proof-texts such as Romans 8: 20-23, among others, that indicate Paul's understanding that the term, in this case, should, at the least, include the entire earth.]

This ministry's stated doctrine will definitely lead to a strong deception and will, indeed, "deceive" even some who consider themselves members of the "elect," the chosen. This organization's statements relative to the doctrine of salvation through observing nature (i.e. naturalism) strongly undermines, especially for a "scientifically" oriented society, the fact that, with the coming of the New Testament church, salvation is through belief in and the acceptance of the Gospel message, including all of its supernatural aspects, and a personal Savior, Jesus Christ. Such salvation can only be obtained through belief in and obeying Jesus Christ and, once an individual is exposed to these Biblical truths, only through the special procedures explicitly stated only within the Bible. These procedures are not displayed by any inanimate aspect of our physical world. These special Biblical instructions cannot come from general revelation.

This ministry also presents some very unusual statements that do not directly occur in the Scriptures and yet they claim that they do. These statements deal with the great philosophical problems of "good" and "evil." Rather than acknowledging the clear Scriptural teachings that "good" and "evil" are spiritual in character and are influenced by two spirits, this ministry presents philosophical ramblings such as "(cursed) physical death is good" and even a "gift from God," an "expression of His love." Further, this ministry claims that cursed physical death is neither "a punishment" nor even a "wrath of God." As direct statements, these quotations appear to be in direct opposition to the Genesis 3 implications, the salvation message and Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 15:26 and 54 - 56. Note in particular 56: "The sting of death is sin" (KJ) "For sin - the sting the causes death - will all be gone." (LB) As is well-known, death is encouraged by the Adversary.

Many believe that the Hebrew mind-set was that God was the creator not just of the material universe but also responsible for everything including what is classified as morally good and evil. (This is substantiated by pre-design and the participator aspects of the GGU-model.) But, evil was " . . . looked on as God's punishment which normally corresponds exactly to the preceding sin." But the facts appear to be that one can ask many questions about the Old Testament concept of evil, which the Old Testament does not answer in any clear and direct manner. The answers are more directly obtained from the New Testament. If God allows obtuse dialectic arguments as a bases for comprehending His basic concepts, then there are arguments that seem to circumvent the apparent prohibitions presented within Paul's statements or, indeed, as such statements might be understood relative to the more definitive New Testament meanings for these concepts.

The logic this ministry uses is often not scientific logic and undermines the scientific logic used for a scientific creation scenario. Such logic is contrary to the logic presented within the Bible, which is a two-valued logic, a logic of absolutes. Such dialectic arguments would, in my opinion, most certainly not help the "heathen" to accept the clear and straightforward New Testament salvation format. The concepts of "good" and "evil" as presented by this ministry will actual aid to defeat the salvation message and are clearly designed to confuse and beguile. From my 40 years attuned to the mind of evil, the absolute fact is that an individual must first realize the need for a Saviour, a need to be attuned to the "mind of Christ," to a Spirit, rather than to be attuned to another spirit, the mind of evil that does not "speak" in absolutes.

The most dangerous aspect of this theology is that removing, from the Bible, the basic strict meanings for many significant terms or claiming, without any direct Biblical justification, that pure speculative statements are Biblically inspired will allow individuals exposed to these linguistic methods to also remove, "cross out," alter or add to the strict and required Biblically stated "salvation format." As it has been established above and by other investigators, this theology is, indeed, "another gospel" implied nowhere within Paul's writings and, indeed, nowhere within the Scriptures.

(For a further discussion as to this ministry's attempts at Scriptural re-interpretation, a process that leads to the actual salvation aspect of this ministry, the "Universal God" concept of general revelation, please see the book, "Creation and Time: A Report on the Book by Hugh Ross," by Van Bebber and Taylor. It is published by Eden Communications and you can find this book at this URL.)

This ministry does not uphold the incomprehensible and supernatural Divine power of God's creationary processes and, hence, greatly weakens the salvation message, its supernatural aspects and its strict Biblical format. Individuals will probably follow this ministry's salvation message. A few will seek proper guidance from the special revelations given only in the Bible as to the proper and strict salvation format. But, many, many more will not follow Biblical guidance although they have been exposed to the correct Scriptural statements. Jesus describes the probable salvation result for this latter group.

Many will say to me in that day Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:22)

[7] Such doctrinal concerns appear not to be relative to the salvation of the so-called heathen who have not or will not receive the correct salvation message. For, if this ministry's concerns were of this nature, then it would follow the absolute Scriptural requirements of the "Great Commission" as this ministry claims to follow explicitly, which it does not actually do. I repeat, that it is clear to me that this doctrinal approach, this dangerous theology, as it is being presented to many "science or science fiction" oriented individuals who might be considered as Scripturally weak in doctrine will drive a wedge between such individuals and the true path to salvation. As indicate in [6], the Scriptures indicate, in my opinion, that such a process could easily lead to individual damnation, which is one of the most basic goals of the Adversary.

[8] One aspect of this ministry is scientifically deceptive. For years, this ministry has attempted to model Divine attributes by a form of standard "dimension" theory. However, I know of no, and I repeat no, scientific definition for this concept that has any relation to the attributes this ministry attempts to model. Indeed, not even "infinite dimension" theory is satisfactory. Unless this ministry gives an acceptable definition for the concept they apply, then their model is vacuous.

It is extremely clear that within the Scriptures the supernatural attributes of the Godhead are, at the most, but partially comprehensible when they are compared to physical attributes. But, for each of these numerous comparisons, the Bible states specifically that the supernatural attributes are very dissimilar from physical attributes in power and divinity. Since standard mathematical structures, including finite and infinite dimensional structures, are used to model physical-system behavior within our universe and the physical attributes of God's created, using these same structures to model God's supernatural aspects is closely related to pantheism.

Any claim this ministry makes that the standard mathematical structure they use models aspects of the supernatural attributes of God is completely false and designed to take glory unto themselves and will lead many individuals towards everlasting damnation. Another reason for this warning is that as Ross' "God" concept evolves it is converging towards a type of "Cosmic Logos" of the Alice Bailey occultism.

It is significant to the claims of this ministry that the first non-pantheistic mathematical model ever devised that does, indeed, model the attributes this ministry attempts to, but fails to so model, does so by modeling processes that mirror concepts stated specifically within the Scriptures. The model constructed from 1979 - 1982 (Herrmann, R. A. "The reasonableness of metaphysical evidence," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 34(1)(1982), 12-23), appears to pre-date any comparable work by Hugh Ross. It is very, very strange that this ministry is apparently not aware of this model's existence when one considers this ministry's association with the American Scientific Affiliation.

[9] Relative to other less significant concerns, members of his ministry, apparently, have no comprehension of the modern notion of "abrupt appearance" in mature and structured form. This is clear from statements made where this concept is discussed only relative to nineteenth century writer Grosse. The modern concept is completely distinct from the Grosse theory.

[10] Finally, I cannot find a compelling statement from his ministry that affirms that only through true supernatural Holy Spirit verification, as stated in 1 John 2:27, and not by scientific means can the absolute correctness of any such theological doctrine be determined.

Significant Additional Information

Due to their concentration upon purely unguided naturalistic processes, the ministry discussed above actually denies the true creation power of God. Scriptural statements such as Hebrews 1:3 ". . . sustaining [or upholding] the universe by His powerful command" indicate such a power, a power that does not exist within the naturalistic mechanisms advocated by this organization, a power that, as established by this author, can only be partially modeled by special mathematical techniques.

The standard mathematical procedures advocated by Ross do not actually correspond, in any manner, to the Scripture notion of God's "power." Using the correct mathematical approach, one can characterize such a power in an easily understood manner by stating that if God simply stopped "thinking about" His creation, so to speak, then His creation would cease to exist. Is there an actual scientific model that predicts, not just assumes or hypothesizes, the rational existence of just such a power?

The mathematical theory that yields the scientific GGU-model solves the General Grand Unification Problem and the GGU-model can be directly interpreted using the theological language that appears in Genesis 1. The interpretation is exact and absolutely strict. No alterations in the meanings of the fundamental terms in Genesis 1 occur and no additional assumptions are included. Further, this same scientific structure models exactly the sustaining power described in Hebrews 1:3. [See the reference at the end of this article.] Since the modeling processes use the most consistent modern mathematical procedures that were discovered but a few years ago, rather than the inconsistent mathematical interpretation procedures used to construct the model advocated by this ministry, you should expect, unless you are well prepared in the appropriate technical requirements, that the actual correspondence to Genesis 1 might be somewhat difficult to comprehend in any depth.

The actual scientifically generated model that does correspond to Genesis 1 can be found described within my book "Science Declares Our Universe Is Intelligently Designed (Xulon Press, publication date April - May 2002). Of significance is that new results have been obtained that add greatly to this book. They can all be found on this website. Further, these new results and the book material completely and strictly correspond to the Biblical account. Indeed, this model satisfies all of the observational data as well as or better than the model advocated by this ministry. This model presents a complete counter to the model proposed by this ministry and demonstrates that the "correct" model cannot be known by application of standard mathematical means. Indeed, the same modeling procedures can be used to model numerously many other creation scenarios that will diverge completely from these literal scenarios.

From a scientific viewpoint, to imply that the model presented by this ministry has been established as the correct model is the greatest deception of all. You must use "other" means, and definitely not the "scientific method," to make a choice. But, of course, the choice might depend upon whether you consider the Bible as the inerrant word of God, a document that should not be altered in any manner whatsoever. Such a choice is also necessary for creationary science models. However, most certainly, the choice is entirely at your discretion. [I challenge anyone within this ministry to show that the model I present is not obtained by means of a correct scientific modeling procedure, that it does not follow the exact and strictly stated Biblical format, or that it uses any form of significant Biblical speculation. This is The Eden Model.]

It is my firm belief that this ministry, and many others, misinterpret, purposely I think, Romans 1: 19-20. There are various interpretations of these verses that often seem to depend upon the prideful nature of a ministry. The prideful interpretations always relate to the ability of the human being to describe the processes God uses to create. The Hugh Ross ministry often justifies its efforts based upon such a prideful interpretation. But, the GGU-model's strict theological interpretation absolutely substantiates that such Hugh Ross interpretations are not Biblical.

Below is presented a very brief portion from the above mentioned book and an article on this website that discusses these prideful interpretations. The GGU-model's strict theological that reveals creation in mature and function form shows that what the "heathen's" knowledge of God need not come from a detailed, yet fallible, human explanation as to how God created but, rather, from an appreciation for God's immense creative power, and, possibly, the simple knowledge that the universe exhibits a kind of beauty or design that can only be attributed to a higher-intelligence. This intelligence is so vast that it can be but partially model via mathematics.

Hundreds of times within the Scriptures, we are told how different God is from His created. How "incomprehensible" are His ways, and the like. The problem is that we are also told that we can "reason together" with God. One certainly needs to have some idea as to what God's created life forms can or cannot comprehend about God's creative and sustaining processes. The major verses that are claimed to uphold humankind's ability to have vast knowledge relative to the behavior and formation of the universe exterior to the solar system are Psalm 19:1 as it is coupled with Romans 1:19-20. I suggest it should rather be coupled with Romans 1:19-23. The form of the Greek word here and often translated as "made" and which appears only twice in this form, seems to be much broader in its sense and might be better translated as "achievements" not just those exhibited by His material creation.

What these verses appear to be discussing are God's "attributes." In particular, His achievements "clearly" indicate His unseen, by human senses, "eternal" power and Divinity. I am not the only individual that claims this interpretation. Luther writes relative to Romans 1:20, " 'are clearly seen,' perceived not by the senses but by understanding His 'eternal power and Divinity'." Indeed, the Greek elemental meaning of the word translated as "eternal" is "un-perceived," where "perceived" means, in general, to gain knowledge by the senses. Further, I doubt that in the first century one would conclude from the more complete Romans 1:19-23 that Paul intended one to believe that humankind could also comprehend, in exact detail, the actual processes God used to create. The GGU-model is analogue in character. It models behavior that we may not otherwise be able to comprehend.

Much more likely, Paul means that humankind has an understanding of these Divine attributes from what is observed because such observations exhibit the power and Divinity of God; a power and Divinity that can be but partially comprehended and cannot be replicated by His created. These verses are directed to individuals who do not acknowledge the highly incomprehensible aspects of God as represented by His wondrous creative power. They thus glorify Him not, but became vain through the use of human imaginations as a replacement for God's creative power, a creative power that is claimed by corruptible individuals to be totally comprehensible.

In numerously many ways, the GGU-model's strict theological interpretation upholds the impossibility of complete human comprehension. The model actually states that we cannot completely comprehend. Although but a slight comparison, individuals often seem to appreciate artistic endeavors to a much greater degree, than would ordinarily be expected, if they don't understand exactly how the end results are achieved.

Reference


Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.