I think we're arguing about words, perhaps talking past one another. Yes, I affirm the ecumenical creeds; I've read the Nicene and Ante-Nicene fathers; I've basked in the glow of the Reformed and Post-Reformation greats like Owen and Turretin and Witsius and á Brakel. Just because the doctrine is clear (perspicuous) doesn't mean it's comprehensible (in the technical sense).

I know that Christ has two natures in one person--but that doesn't mean I fully comprehend how the hypostatic union *works.* I know that God is numerically one, but exists eternally in three persons (or 'prosopons') - equal in substance, power, and glory -- but that doesn't mean I fully comprehend how that works. It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's a mystery to be wondered at. "Thus far shall you go, and no further."

The point of my post is that rationalism is as faulty as irrationalism. There are some things that are too high for us, not just because we are lazy (though sometimes we are) but because God is ultimately "unsearchable, his ways past finding out." Some will reject an idea about the infinite because they cannot fully grasp it in their finite mind--which is to bring God down to earth. Hubris is as faulty as sloth.

We are called to love him with all of our mind, to grow in understanding, to move from the "milk" to the "meat" - but there comes a point where the finite reaches its border and we must simply bow in awe. I am not saying God is unknowable--He is (because we share some attributes with him and he is able to communicate himself to us)--I am saying he is incomprehensible. The finite cannot fully contain the infinite. Treating the deep things of God like so many lego pieces to be assembled is to show hubris where humility is called for.

Deut. 29:29