***God shows us that He is personal through His revelation to us. As Kosta noted, a good place to start would be with the Incarnation itself. God created a way for us to know Him that surpassed previous revelations. It was personal and real (of a person, not ethereal). ***
And I’d agree with this with the added note that Jesus was real and personal in his Incarnation to those who knew Him. Scripture contains the description of His life on earth; you are living vicariously (as it were) through the eyewitnesses and those who wrote down the stories. It is removed from the immediately personal.
***I wasn’t sure if it was also the Latin view to deny the personality of God.***
God is God. I don’t think that applying a human term such as “personality” would be of any use whatsoever. Jesus, on the other hand, was human and His personality does come through in Scripture.
***Matt 16:15-17 : 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
Nothing about free will here, or having something “proved” to him.***
Revealing something to someone with free will means that they have the ability to react to it. Revelation has nothing whatsoever to do with free will or robotic frogmarching. It is simply that one knows something that one didn’t know before.
I am using "personality" to show that God is "of or relating to a person". That person is identifiable and knowable to a certain extent. That person is also rational. This is all to distinguish from the "impersonal" God that has been proffered to me. That God is unknowable and irrational. He could do anything at any time for no reason whatsoever and apparently followers of that faith would not even notice, much more change their beliefs. To me, that relationship with God is the same relationship I now have with "the government". Totally impersonal and irrational. On a purely personal basis, is your relationship with God like it is with "the government"? (And going through other men is what we do with the government :)
***Matt 16:15-17 : 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
FK: Nothing about free will here, or having something “proved” to him.***
[Re: Matt 16:15-17] Revealing something to someone with free will means that they have the ability to react to it. Revelation has nothing whatsoever to do with free will or robotic frogmarching. It is simply that one knows something that one didn’t know before.
What are you saying? Is it that God revealed the truth to Peter, and then Peter used his free will to verbalize it???!!! Therefore we should focus here on Peter's ability to recognize it???!!! I'm lost. My answer was in response to you saying:
How many people saw Christ in the flesh, saw miracles, heard Him teach and still didn’t believe? Just more evidence for the free will of men.
I refuted that with showing that free will did not concern coming to believe. While you didn't address that, you appear to agree with me by shifting the subject to something new. However, in your last sentence that "something" that one now knows through revelation would be the truth of Christ. So, I would agree (I think) with you that this knowing has nothing to do with free will.