freeborn | ἐλεύθερος on Nostr: You are still conflating terminology, brother. Just in the above you're putting the ...

You are still conflating terminology, brother. Just in the above you're putting the word comprehensible where you mean to say simply knowable.

Quoting Berkhof:

>Luther speaks repeatedly of God as the Deus Absconditus (hidden God), in distinction from Him as the Deus Revelatus (revealed God). In some passages he even speaks of the revealed God as still a hidden God in view of the fact that we cannot fully know Him even through His special revelation. To Calvin, God in the depths of His being is past finding out. “His essence,” he says, “is incomprehensible; so that His divinity wholly escapes all human senses.” The Reformers do not deny that man can learn something of the nature of God from His creation, but maintain that he can acquire true knowledge of Him only from special revelation, under the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit.

...and later:

>Reformed theology holds that God can be known, but that it is impossible for man to have a knowledge of Him that is exhaustive and perfect in every way. To have such a knowledge of God would be equivalent to comprehending Him, and this is entirely out of the question: “Finitum non possit capere infinitum.”

-- Berkhof, [Systematic Theology](https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/berkhof/doctrineofgod.html#knowability)

That Latin phrase at the end of the Berkhof quote is what I've been repeating in this thread: "the finite cannot contain the infinite."

Here's Sproul: [Divine Incomprehensibility](https://www.monergism.com/divine-incomprehensibility)

You are correct that I confess the WCF--but it does not teach divine comprehensibility, it affirms God's knowability *and* his infinity.