That doesn't mean there cannot be things about God that are beyond our understanding. Certain things are indeed beyond the grasp of our finite minds. But I am discussing concepts that we can understand. For instance, we know it is morally better to be good to our children than to be bad to them. There is no mystery here; nothing beyond our finite understanding. And yet the Calvinist suggests that God, in dealing with His children, is just and good in treating them as badly as He possibly can. How do they justify it? By claiming God is not our Father; He's only our Creator! In other words, they seek to absolve Him of the lesser obligation by appealing to an even greater one. Again, there is nothing mysterious here. Not even remotely. Hence, if this be true, then we have to admit that it's entirely possible, even probable, that God's logic is so removed from our own that we may not trust our senses to apprehend it properly. Consequently, God's up may be our down; His truth may be our lie; His good our bad; indeed it's possible that His idea of existence is consistent with our idea of non-existence, so that when God says He exists, what He really means is that He does not exist. And if this is true, then we must admit, with Job, that we “cannot arrange our case for we are in darkness.” But more than this, we must also admit that we cannot understand anything about God due to this darkness. He is a mystery, plain and simple.
But even if we wish to grant that CRS does know something of God, of His ways and His character, we run into another problem, namely, they simply cannot agree amongst themselves with regard to even the most basic questions. What is God? Is He One? Or three? Or three in one? Or one in three? Does the Spirit proceed from the Father? Or the Son? Or both? There's no consensus. What did He accomplish for us on the cross? There are almost as many theories of Atonement as there are denominations. They don't really know what He accomplished. Who did He accomplish it for? Half of the Christian world answers “for everyone”; half answers “for the elect only.” How do we avail ourselves of this gift? Some say by faith; some say by faith plus works; some say by baptism and the sacraments; some say by calling on Christ; some say by obedience; etc . .
And what about God's character. What is He like? Even on this fundamental question, the simplest and most basic question we could ask, we find an incredibly wide divergence of opinion; i.e.: one half says He's love, and earnestly desires us all to be saved; the other half depicts Him as an indifferent, even hateful deity whose blood lust exceeds our wildest nightmares. And finally, for the person who might throw up his hands and say, well, I don't care about all that; all that matters is love; well, on that note we still encounter disagreement. What constitutes genuine, saving Christian love? Preaching the gospel? Feeding the poor? A combination of the two? And if it does involve sharing the gospel, which gospel? The prosperity gospel? The gospel that emphasizes baptism in the Spirit? The one that insists on holy living? The one that asks for a profession of faith and little else? The one that emphasizes sacraments? Whose love is the real thing? Each denomination's truth is another one's lie; each one's light is another one's darkness. Why should any right-minded person believe any of them? They say “we know, we know” and yet stand in variance to everyone around them with regard to even the most basic questions. Can the agnostic really access the Christian faith and say “they believe this” or “they believe that” and contrast it with their own beliefs? How can they? They can only contrast their own beliefs, or lack thereof, with those of each individual denomination. All share a belief that God exists, but with regard to what actually exists they cannot agree. They only agree on His name—and not even on that! (just ask the Jehovah's Witnesses). The Christian system as a whole believes so many different things about God that its really the equivalent of believing nothing. Survey all of Christianity and the only logical conclusion is that God, if He exists, must be unknowable, for those who profess to know Him, all know Him differently. And if God is unknowable, than we have, once again, met our definition of Agnosticism, which, after all is said and done, is really just to profess in words precisely what the Christian world exhibits by their own words, deeds, and schisms.