Do modern philosophy and psychology answer the fundamental question of who we are? This question presumes we can look at ourselves and produce an image. Whenever we observe people, we are organizing the qualities of whom they are. The bible says we are body and soul. We naturally possess five senses. These essential qualities are universal. But we further possess a distinct identity. In recognizing who we are by our image, it is not enough to identify these universal qualities. The philosophical question is can we divide these diverse qualities and sufficiently examine them according to empirical studies about human behavior and discover who we are?

 When we discuss the causes of our existence because God fashioned us it is essential we recognize Him. The fundamental question is does the bible offer us a comprehensive understanding of who we are? The Bible remains the sole source of the essential definitions of whom we are. But man has also discovered certain behaviors through empirical observation and scientifically explains them in personality profiles. Consequently, when we are properly discussing the difference between biblical understanding of how we are developed and function or man's explanations through experience one is essential and the other non-essential. The Bible's persuasive explanation focuses on the source of what comprises a man, but the profile studies naturally identify universal behaviors.

 The key question is does the bible offer one effective way of explaining who a man is but there are other equally essential ways of helping a man to discover precisely who he is? The observed difference between the biblical approach and the human study approach is the bible relates our causes directly from God, while the human study by observation in dividing man up and identifying the specific problem. How narrow is the Bible's comparative approach? It proclaims we cannot understand ourselves unless we discover who God is. Instead of the pragmatic approach of dividing man and identifying the specific problem the bible says that man can comprehensively discover himself as he understands the distinct image of the Perfect Man. This is a radical approach because it is proclaiming that One Man sufficiently defines every likely person who ever existed.

 Can the image of one man help many men accept themselves in light of their distinguishing qualities? This One-man image creating the individual image needs to be comprehensively examined. Can the image of one man help develop unique personal images? If you think about this, it cannot conceivably happen through a sensible idea of the image of the One Man but through a meaningful relationship with this one man. This is what we are reasonably maintaining that God is big enough to listen sympathetically to every individual and amply satisfy every need even if the specific needs of one man invariably suffer subversive ends to another man.

 We confuse the teaching of self-denial as the sole way to genuinely know God and ourselves with our satisfied desire to get all of our essential needs. If we know ourselves by knowing God how we can know if God does not provide us with knowledge of ourselves as we were created? Is God enjoining us to resolutely deny our desire to accommodate our needs for us to know Him as self-denial? Is functional ability our comprehensive understanding of God by communication of accommodating our needs? This is what we are maintaining we are incompetent unless God provides the ability we desire which is more than performance. We require the ability to understand who we are because God sufficiently knows Himself.