For example, some Creationists will explain dinosaur bones as "God placed them there to test us" - even if God did place them there, isn't it presumptuous to speculate what the motivations were?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
This is what Luther calls the theologia gloriae.1
The most obvious way to the cognition of God is to follow the footsteps of creation. The creation speaks a powerful language.2 Scholasticism has understood the natural cognition as a way of salvation.3
Scholastics think of God and man from the same viewpoint of natural causality and connect the cognition of God per ea, quae facta sunt4 with a particular ethical view of man and his works.5
This connection builds the base, upon which Luther critisizes the theologia gloriae: That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened«6
For him, real cognition does only happen by cognition of Cross of Christ: theologia crucis.
And finally a biblical quote (found this here):
1: See Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis 19
I may be wrong, but this doesn't so much sound like a question about Christianity as it is about human nature. I can think of four scenarios where I've heard people speak as if they know the mind of God.