# Infallible knowledge, infallible assurance, what are they?



## Afterthought (Sep 20, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Afterthought said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you! That helps clear up a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong: it would also seem then that the object of knowledge could possibly not be 100% true (or else it would seem it would be true that all objects known are infallible), which means that the object of knowledge gives knowledge (knowledge must be true belief) less than 100% of the time, which especially seems true of fallible humans.
> ...


A good idea; I was thinking the same.

So if it is impossible to speak of less than 100% certainty in the object known (which was what I had originally thought), then why do we distinguish between an infallible object known (which is the same as saying one has infallible knowledge? Or is it not?) and an infallible assurance? And between infallible knowledge, and fallible knowledge?


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> why do we distinguish between an infallible object known (which is the same as saying one has infallible knowledge? Or is it not?) and an infallible assurance?



No, it is not infallible knowledge, but knowledge itself presupposes an infallibility in its system somewhere. At the very least we assume that what we know is not an error, and if it is in error we do not say we accept it but set about to correct it. I have never heard any person seriously say, "I know I am in error but I believe I am right." They must think they are right when they tell you what they know.

In coming to assurance, "I know that I know," we are dealing with a reflex act. It is not about the object known so much as the subject knowing. In this we must allow that there might be degrees of certainty because there are numerous factors which render us fallible. Even though this assurance might wax and wane, we still have an in-built obligation to act according to what we know.


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 20, 2012)

Thank you again. I think I've just about got this. It makes sense to apply certainty to "I know that I know." And it makes sense that knowledge presupposes infallibility in its system. The last thing that I'm still having a problem with is what "infallible knowledge" means. I mean, it clearly means knowledge that is incapable of error, so it appears to have to do with the source of knowledge (the object known), since belief can only either be true or false, according as the object known is true or false. So infallible knowledge must come from a source that cannot err (God). Fallible knowledge then would be knowledge that is capable of error. Such could be what we find from knowledge that we gain from fellow humans.

Fallible knowledge and infallible knowledge are the same in truth value though: they both are true belief; it's just that one could be in error while the other cannot be; so it seems "infallible" and "fallible" at least have to do with how warranted one is in holding that belief? I may have made an error in my account here though because my understanding of these things is mistaken!


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> they both are true belief



If knowledge is "true" belief, then the truth value is already accepted; if it is truth, it must be infallible, unless once can conceive of the possibility of truth itself being fallible. Fallible knowledge would then be a contradiction in terms.

With respect to the source of truth (we confess that God is truth itself), once we accept "thy word is truth," and we are satisfied the word teaches a certain fact, then that fact must be regarded as infallible irrespective of our subjective state. Any claim to human fallibility will not alter the infallibility of the fact. I hope that makes sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 20, 2012)

Thank you! One last question on this topic (though I have others on related ones!): It seems infallible knowledge is the same as just plain knowledge with respect to truth value; what is the difference between just plain knowledge and infallible knowledge then? If there is none, why do we use the word "infallible knowledge"? Is infallible knowledge simply the attitude with which we must treat a fact (as you mentioned above in your second paragraph)?


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> It seems infallible knowledge is the same as just plain knowledge with respect to truth value; what is the difference between just plain knowledge and infallible knowledge then? If there is none, why do we use the word "infallible knowledge"? Is infallible knowledge simply the attitude with which we must treat a fact (as you mentioned above in your second paragraph)?



We need to go back to the original context where I stated that reformed theology teaches the infallibility of the object known, which is the divine promise. As long as the object known is the word of God then the claim to infallibility rests simply on our belief in the infallibility of the word. Where the object is changed the terms must be changed likewise. There will be a claim to infallibility somewhere in every system of knowledge, but in some systems it is quite obscured and requires an intricate process of analysis to discover it.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 21, 2012)

Coming at this from a slightly different angle, wouldn't you say that man's knowledge can be no more than analogous? "Infallible" in terms of finite man's knowledge doesn't seem possible, whereas man having knowledge analogous to the infinite God's reflects the creature/creator distinction. 

(Great to see you posting again Rev. Winzer!)


----------



## MW (Sep 21, 2012)

jwithnell said:


> Coming at this from a slightly different angle, wouldn't you say that man's knowledge can be no more than analogous? "Infallible" in terms of finite man's knowledge doesn't seem possible, whereas man having knowledge analogous to the infinite God's reflects the creature/creator distinction.



The reformed system teaches (1.) the Word of God (the person of Jesus and the holy Scripture) is fully human and accommodated to our human capacities, and (2.) the Word of God is infallible; hence the reformed system demands infallibility as a quality of truth in "human" understanding. Besides, it seems an impossible task to define truth (as an object) without the quality of infallibility. Removing that quality would also take away from its moral authority. Truth must be such that it demands full consent and submission.


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 22, 2012)

Thank you for patiently answering my questions! That was quite helpful! I'm quite sure I understand now. It's always a pleasure to discuss things with you!


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 23, 2012)

(Not to kidnap your thought-train here Raymond, I really appreciate this discussion).

Truth is indeed objective: Jesus described Himself as truth [in John] invoking his deity (I am) along with objectivity (the truth); and, as already noted, Jesus is the Logos. His knowledge is indeed infinite and infallible. And we could, in sense, consider ourselves made in his image twice: first as humans created in the garden, and secondly as those who are being made like him in our sanctification. However, in this age, we are still under the terrible effects of the fall: the best our thoughts can be are filthy rags, certainly not infinite truth. The only way it can be truthful is if it is analogous to God's knowledge recorded in scripture. And in the age to come, our knowledge will be limited -- mercifully it will be entirely truthful and a perfect reflection of God's word, but it will still be limited. I guess the question comes down to this: can limited knowledge be infallible? 

(I'd also suggest that there are many who take C. Van Til's writing as the best expression of reformed Christian epistemology.)


----------



## MW (Sep 23, 2012)

jwithnell said:


> I guess the question comes down to this: can limited knowledge be infallible?
> 
> (I'd also suggest that there are many who take C. Van Til's writing as the best expression of reformed Christian epistemology.)



Christ as man had limited, infallible knowledge. Our Christology should determine the answer to this question. If we accept that Scripture is accommodated to human capacity, that Scripture is infallible, and that we can know Scripture through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, then there should be no difficulty with accepting the infallibility of the things known, WCF 1.5 and 18.2.

I am thankful for many of CVT's insights, but I don't think his ideas of analogy and paradox will be of any help in this area. In his reasoning he could sometimes jump between the incomprehensible and the knowable, which led to a confused view of analogy, and it is from this confusion that paradox emerges, not from the revelation of God in Scripture.


----------



## MW (Sep 23, 2012)

The following is from James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings 1:48-49. It helpfully shows the sense in which the Bible is the religion of Protestants.

The Bible, therefore, is the Religion of Protestants — the supreme standard of faith and duty. The authority of the Bible depends upon the question of its inspiration, and the final and conclusive proof of that elicits a principle in Protestantism which exempts its theology from the dead, traditional formalism of the theology of Rome. *That principle is*, *that the truths of the Bible authenticate themselves as Divine by their own light*. Faith is an intuition awakened by the Holy Ghost, and the truth is neither known nor believed until it is consciously realized by the illuminated mind as the truth of God. Intuition does not generate, but it perceives the truth. Reason, under the guidance of the Spirit, appropriates and digests it. *The knowledge is immediate and infallible*. The Bible becomes no longer a letter, but a spirit, and religion is not a tradition, but a life. Hence, Protestantism has all the warmth and vigour and spirituality of Rationalism, without its dangers of confounding fancies with facts, dreams with inspiration. The Word supplies an external test, which protects from imposture and deceit. The Spirit educates and unfolds a Divine life under the regulative guidance of the Word. The Bible and the Spirit are therefore equally essential to a Protestant theology. _Theologia_ (says Thomas Aquinas) _a Deo docetur_, _Deum docet_, _et ad Deum ducit_. It springs from God as the source, treats of God as its subject, and tends to God as its end.


----------

