# Objective Certainty



## Devin

_(I know there have been threads that kinda danced around this topic, but I wanted a more specific answer)_

Epistemologically, can we as Christians have objective certainty regarding knowledge? If so, how do we account for it?


----------



## BobVigneault

Did you read through this thread Devin?

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16290&highlight=objective+truth

I thought this thread had a lot of meat in it.


----------



## Devin

Yes, I did read through that thread. Its question is similar to the one in this thread, but will a little different emphasis.


----------



## JohnV

Devin:
My answer is "yes". I cannot give that certainty that I have. If you're looking to me to provide that certainty, then you're looking in the wrong place. For I too am looking elsewhere for that certainty. I can only point you to the One who gives me that certainty. 

Do not find merely theology in the Bible, but find Christ there too. Then you too will have certainty. 

If you wish to found your certainty upon your own insights and philosophical knowledge, then your certainty will only be a sure as the limitations of your own insights and philosophies. Unless you have comprehensive knowledge and wisdom to understand that knowledge, unless you are able to go beyond the bounds of our limitations as finite creatures, you cannot possibly attain that degree of certainty which you seek, for there will always be a doubt of some kind. But if you found the little that you know upon the person of Christ Himself, and it is He that assures you, then you may have certainty beyond measure, even if you know very little of all that the Bible teaches. That is why even beginners in the faith can have as much certainty as those who have many years of maturing in the faith. It is not how much you know, it is not what you know, but it is whether you know Christ personally through His Word, through prayer, and through the sanctifying work of the Spirit within you. That is where certainty comes from.


----------



## August

Devin said:


> _(I know there have been threads that kinda danced around this topic, but I wanted a more specific answer)_
> 
> Epistemologically, can we as Christians have objective certainty regarding knowledge? If so, how do we account for it?



Devin, what kind of knowledge are you talking about? I also think that the word "objective" is a little bit loaded. Do you also understand it to mean that it refers to an object that exists indepedently from our observation of it?

It gets a little complicated, because it is impossible to seperate ontology from epistemology when we talk about certainty.


----------



## Devin

Please forgive me, I do not know the proper philosophical language to express what _kind_ of certainty I'm talking about. So, let me tell you the situation that brought this up:

On another board, I brought up the questions "How do we know, and can we know for sure?"

One person said that we can't have absolute certainty about the things we know because everything could be an illusion. I then asked if we could have absolute certainty that we can't have certainty (more in jest than anything). He then reduced his argument to say that "We can only be certain that all else is uncertain"

Thus, this thread was created. I haven't thought about these things much, so I thought I'd ask you folks.


----------



## BobVigneault

Devin, here is how I worked through epistemology - the justification of knowledge. It is at a primer level and written in layman's terms for a popular audience. I broke it into four bite-sized portions. If you have the time, read through it and let me know what you think and how you know those thoughts are justified.  


http://theheartbeatofheaven.solideogloria.com/2006/10/how-do-we-know-what-we-know-part-one.html

http://theheartbeatofheaven.solideogloria.com/2006/10/how-do-we-know-what-we-know-part-two.html

http://theheartbeatofheaven.solideogloria.com/2006/10/how-do-we-know-what-we-know-part-three.html

http://theheartbeatofheaven.solideogloria.com/2006/10/how-do-we-know-what-we-know-part-four.html


----------



## Devin

While I balk at using the word axiom, I do agree with and appreciate your blog entries.


----------



## BobVigneault

I undertand Devin, I don't like the ugly little word either but it's just easier than writing "a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted or self-evidently true."


----------



## August

Devin, did Bob's excellent summary answer your question, or do you need more information?

Knowledge is normally defined as (true) justified belief. If we look back at your original question, is it fair to rephrase it as "Can we as Christians have knowledge that is justified?", or does that conceivably set the bar too low? The reason I previously asked about the type of knowledge is that it may be easier to justify some types rather than others. The perception is that it is easier to justify "physical" knowledge as opposed to metaphysical.

I certainly would ask the guy who stated that "We can only be certain that all else is uncertain" to defend that statement. What are his premises, and why? Is that an objective statement or not, i.e. does it hold true just for him or for everyone? If he responds that it holds true for everyone, then he has to show that there can be an objective truth, because that is what he affirms, and why that necessarily should be limited to just one. If not, then it is merely his opinion, and while it may be perfectly valid for him, it need not be so for others.


----------



## JohnV

John:

Then the question reduces to, "Can I know any truth objectively?" The answer to certainty is not found in looking inward, but looking outward. It does not sit in our presuppositions, but in those things that are revealed. God does not just reveal truths; He reveals Himself. Knowing Him is the only ground for certainty in any area of knowledge. For is it only in knowing Him that one can know with certainty the things that are taught in His Word, that they are true.


----------



## August

John, you are right, and I did not mean to imply that the source of our certainty can be in ourselves, because that would make it a subjective certainty. However, knowledge, and the certainty thereof, is still a human characteristic, with the justification of our certainty coming from God, as you said. 

For interest sake, and this is off-topic, sorry, does Christ's mediatory function extend to the truth-knowledge-revelation, or do we have a "direct" interaction with God?


----------



## JohnV

August said:


> For interest sake, and this is off-topic, sorry, does Christ's mediatory function extend to the truth-knowledge-revelation, or do we have a "direct" interaction with God?


Christ's mediatory function and the truth-knowledge-revelation of the Word cannot be separated, for how would we know one without the other? 

The second part of your question, "or...", I cannot agree with the juxtaposition. I don't believe that you can put the one against the other, that it is an either/or question. We have knowledge of God, and God is Spirit, so there must be some kind of direct contact. The Word can be that kind of contact. That would explain why some read it but do not see what it really says, and others read it and are truly blessed. 

I suppose the question that we're interested in is whether we come in contact with God or God with us. I believe it is the second. I believe that this is what the Bible teaches us. By God's filling us with His Spirit we have the Word made clear to us, illuminating our understanding. It is not that we reached up to Him to find the meaning, but that in our seeking Him it was He that sought us, came down to us, and granted true knowledge. 

Does this confuse saving knowledge with general knowledge? I don't believe so. Many can have certainty in general knowledge, by the grace of God, without necessarily having saving knowledge. The majority of people, I would guess, have a sense of certainty only because there are those few among them who do have certainty and establish a social grounding for knowledge. That is, some believe that they have certainty because they believe others who seem, in their eyes, to have certainty. And some of those who seem to have certainty borrow that certainty from the Church, who has it direct from God. A lot of people do not question themselves about what they are certain of, and how it is that they are certain. But a Christian strives for that certainty because his own salvation, he believes, is certain, and not just a figment of his belief system. So he strives to build his beliefs upon the certainty which God grants him, beginning with his own certainty of salvation. And so we are back to the inseparability of these two things, of the mediatorial work of Christ and of knowledge.


----------



## tewilder

Devin said:


> _(I know there have been threads that kinda danced around this topic, but I wanted a more specific answer)_
> 
> Epistemologically, can we as Christians have objective certainty regarding knowledge? If so, how do we account for it?



What do you mean by "objective certainty"? Do you mean classical foundationalism? A Cartesian view of what constitutes certainty (i.e. How do you know whether "The Matrix has you"? If you can't prove it doesn't you don't have knowledge.), or what?

I suggest approaching the question from a whole different angle. Look at "God, Man and Faith" in the Winter 2006 issue of _Christianity & Society_.

http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/journal.shtml#68


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Everyone,

Terms really do need to be defined. What is objective certainty? For instance, some might want to define "objectively certain knowledge" as "belief known to be true in a philosophically certain manner." Philosophical certainty can be defined as "absolutely impossible for it not to be the case." Many Van Tillian presuppositionalists want to claim to have this type of knowledge. I disagree that we can have this type of knowledge. This type of knowledge requires one to be omniscient and infallible. Only God has these attributes, and as such only God has this kind of knowledge. Now, that does not mean that we cannot know things that are objectively true. Here we might define "objectivity" as something true relative to the mind of God. For instance, that I was born on 9/28/66 may be objectively true - that is to say, from God's perspective this is true; however, even though I believe my birthday to be on this date, I do not know this to be true in a philosophically certain manner. From my perspective, there is at least a hypothetical chance, albeit very small, that I could be wrong. Maybe, the birthdate was mixed up on the birth certificate? Maybe, the clocks were slightly off? So, even if from God's perspective my birthday is 9/28/66, because I cannot get beyond myself - a fallible creature - then I cannot have certain knowledge. Even if one argues that God could reveal objective truth to me, from my perspective, I can always make mistakes in my interpretation of these truths, or in my deductive analysis of these truths, or even in my judgements as to what God has revealed to me. As such, even in these cases, I cannot know in a certain manner I have objectively true knowledge. I do believe that one can have rationally justified belief, though. 

Brian


----------



## Devin

Brian:

Would you say that you can only have a rationally justified belief that God exists and not objective certainty?


----------



## JohnV

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Terms really do need to be defined. What is objective certainty? For instance, some might want to define "objectively certain knowledge" as "belief known to be true in a philosophically certain manner." Philosophical certainty can be defined as "absolutely impossible for it not to be the case."
> 
> Brian



Brian:

I shudder at the thought that my certainty of God depends upon my philosophy. It is necessary that my philosophical certainty depends upon God. 

And I shudder to think that my belief in God depends at all upon the impersonal impossibility of there not being a God instead upon the personal knowledge of God. I may be absolutely convinced that it is impossible for God not to exist, but that doesn't at all mean that I believe Him at His word. 

I think that these are two different things. I know that some people build their entire theological network upon their philosophical certainty, instead of the other way around, but these are not the real presuppositionalists. They know their apologetics before they know theology, and that is backwards. You have to know what it is you are defending before you apply the methodology to it. But that's not the question here. 

Certainty can only be built upon God's revelation of Himself. He reveals Himself by two means, as stated in BC, art II. That is, then, the Word is not merely a statement of objective facts from God's own authority, but it reveals Him personally, along with and through Christ. If we miss God and Christ, then we have missed the Word as well. And the same holds true for God's revelation of Himself in creation: if we miss God, then we may be sure that we have missed general revelation as well. 

That is why the illumination of the Spirit through the preaching of the Word and through prayer is so vital to the gospel.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello JohnV and Devin,



Devin said:


> Would you say that you can only have a rationally justified belief that God exists and not objective certainty?



Yes.



JohnV said:


> Certainty can only be built upon God's revelation of Himself.



I appreciated much of what you wrote. It seems you say that you know a particular truth of God's revelation in a philosophically certain manner. If so, what truth do you know with certainty?

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## JohnV

Yes, I do as a matter of fact. I know many things in a philosophically certain manner. I know that truth is not a figment of my imagination, that the truth and theology that I believe is not merely my own, but is also the theology of many, many true believers before me; that none of my own presuppositions form a basis for the truths that I know and believe, but instead that I may form presuppositions upon the truths that are given to me. 

I know, for example, that Anselm's ontological argument does not stop at chapter three, but that the real meat of it comes after that. I have yet to read a philosopher who understands the ontological argument in that fashion. And yet I know that I do not stand alone in this, that all the men of faith before me who truly knew their Saviour carried this same conviction, even if they never analyzed it or formulated it into words. But they indeed did formulate it very clearly, and we have it as our church standards and covenants for Biblical purity. 

I may know a lot of things with certainty, without falling into a socratic or cartesian trap. Whatever philosophical certainty I may have, it is "sub-certain", if I may coin a term, to the certainty that I have in the knowledge of my Saviour and Lord. Nor do I need fear the accusation that this is all subjective knowledge, for I cannot prove my relationship with Christ to others. I prove it by the doctrine I hold to and the life I live out of that doctrine. That is how the Church also examines those who profess their faith. The only accusation against me is that I will not conform to the necessities laid upon Christians in addition to those that the Bible imposes, and that I am not subject to authority that imposes upon me to displace the Bible's doctrines with those of men, or that derive out of men's theories. 

So even if I have no answer for those (say, evolutionists) who present "irrefutable proofs", I am still quite firmly resolved in the superior knowledge of Christ my Saviour, and of the truth of His Word. 

You may do a search of my posts that have to do with, say, the Classical methodology of apologetics. You will note that my certainty does not depend upon this methodology, but that it is a separate methodology used to defend the certainty that I have. Or you may do a search of all my posts in which I discuss my particular bent toward Amillennialism, and you will find that my theology does not depend upon a precommitment to it in any way. As a matter of fact, you will find that these are not precommitments on my part, but rather that they are sentiments that are after-commitments, standing on no speculations of my own making. 

In short, I don't believe things in a way that, since I believe them, therefore they are true for me; but rather that things are true and therefore I believe them. I do not look for certainty, but it is given to me. I seek for God, but it is He that found me.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello JohnV,

My purpose here is to question the idea that someone can have philosophical certainty, and not someone's security in their salvation. Allow me to provide a possible definition for philosophical certainty.

*Philosophical Certainty:* Person A is philosophically certain about belief X if and only if person A infallibly knows X is true.

You claim to have philosophically certain knowledge. Using my definition, that means you believe at least one proposition X, and you infallibly know that X is true. One of those propositions is you knowing God as your Savior. We could say X= "I am saved". So, JohnV is philosophically certain that he is saved because he infallibly knows that the proposition "JohnV is saved" is true. How do you infallibly know that the proposition "JohnV is saved" is true? 

Brian


----------



## JohnV

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello JohnV,
> 
> My purpose here is to question the idea that someone can have philosophical certainty, and not someone's security in their salvation. Allow me to provide a possible definition for philosophical certainty.
> 
> *Philosophical Certainty:* Person A is philosophically certain about belief X if and only if person A infallibly knows X is true.
> 
> You claim to have philosophically certain knowledge. Using my definition, that means you believe at least one proposition X, and you infallibly know that X is true. One of those propositions is you knowing God as your Savior. We could say X= "I am saved". So, JohnV is philosophically certain that he is saved because he infallibly knows that the proposition "JohnV is saved" is true. How do you infallibly know that the proposition "JohnV is saved" is true?
> 
> Brian



Brian:

You ask me how I know infallibly that I am saved, but you also ask how I infallibly know the proposition "JohnV is saved". Two different and separate things. One is an assurance of my salvation in Christ, the other is an assurance of knowledge beyond salvation, or propositional and philosophical understanding.

The certainty that I have of salvation is an infallible assurance which the Spirit gives me, not one that I have conjectured and therefore persuaded myself of. Christ died for me; He died for my salvation before I was born, before I was able to effect it one way or the other. It was made certain by God, not by me. By knowing God and His grace for me, I can be assured with infallible certainty that I am saved. My certainty cannot be founded in me, but in God. However, I am also able to be assured and relatively assured of other persuasions, such as philosophical conjectures, because I first knew that God knew me. 

My salvation is not determined in my doing anything, but in God determining it to be so. And He did this long before I was born, or could think, or could make conjectures, long before I could persuade myself of anything. And it is He that revealed that to me by His saving grace being seen in me, and conveyed to me also through the Church. These things come first; my philosophical conjectures and propositions come afterwards. 

My methodologies, my philosophical approaches, my thought processes, all these are to be brought to submission to God's revelation to me, now that I have this infallible assurance from Him. I do not have a theology that depends at all upon my persuasions on secondary things, nor even upon my own conjectures about primary things. All these are subsequent to, not prior to my knowledge of God and of salvation. 

In other words, my certainty of God is not that I knew God, but that He knew me. And His love was manifested to me by His work of salvation, and several proofs of His love and grace towards me. Such as, He gave me the Word as His message of salvation, and has given me faith to believe Him at His Word. Therefore the Bible is not merely a bunch of true propositions about God for me, but is His personal letter to me of Himself and of His love and grace. This is prior to any certainty on my part: God's revelation of Himself to me in truth. 

Now that my salvation is sure, and now that I infallibly know that He leads my by His Word and Spirit, I may be assured of truth in spite of myself. I do not live in a matrix of some kind, for my certainty is not in my own perception, but my perception is in revealed certainty. There is another person of infallible knowledge who tells me all this; it is not me persuading myself. My certainty cannot depend upon me, otherwise it is a very poor certainty. My own persuasions are uncertain, but God's persuasions are infallible. An uncertain certainty, one that is dependent upon myself, is only a fool's errand. 

Thus it is that I do not have philosophical certainty of my salvation on my own doing; nor that because I persuaded myself that therefore I am certain of my salvation and of the proposition that I am saved. No. It is rather that my salvation is made certain by God, and that I must make it my own to make it certain in every endeavor of mine, including my philosophical conjectures and persuasions coming out of the assurances of God's Word. In short, to put it in philosophical terms, inductions are justified because God has made it known and able to be known (whatever the "it" you may wish referred to; in this case, "JohnV is saved".) 

It doesn't have my stamp of approval on it, but God's. And _therefore_ I believe it and am persuaded of it. And _therefore_ I am also able to have philosophical assurances of things, first directly related to God's revelation of Himself, and then of things which are of necessity true which understanding (submission to truth) has revealed to me.

Philosophical certainty is an additional blessing, but the real and grounding certainty is in being known by God, and His making it known to me. I can know that the proposition, "JohnV is saved" is true because I can know that God has saved me. I have to trust in God for that, as for all certainty of truth. I must first know that I am not reading my own persuasions into the Word of God, but that I am understanding His persuasions to me. This I strive for, making my salvation certain in every area of submission, including philosophical endeavors.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Does objective truth require epistemic certainty?


----------



## JohnV

To whom are you addressing the question, Caleb?

My answer is the same as above: Christ is my epistemic certainty.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

My question was addressed to anybody. When I first started typing the post, your post hadn't been posted yet .


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Paul,

Thank you for the reference to Sudduth’s article. 



> How would you parse this with your understanding…?



I would like to explore this with you a little. Regarding WCF Ch. 18 section II, the context is the believer being certain that they are “in a state of grace.” When we get to section II it qualifies this certainty as being an infallible assurance. Then in section IV it says…



> True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God's withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and be the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.



Paul, here is a possible situation that seems to follow from what has been said: *(1)* Person X at time T has an infallible assurance that he is saved. *(2)* Person X at time T+1 is not certain that he is saved. If this is what is being said is possible, then here are some questions I might ask:

*(A)* At time T+1, what would person X say about his assurance at time T? Would he say it was infallible? Would he _now_ say that it was fallible? 
*(B)* If at time T person X has an infallible assurance that he is saved _and_ if he believed in the Perseverance of the Saints, then could he rationally be uncertain at time T+1? 

There is another possible way to read this. The Holy Spirit gives assurance. The Holy Spirit’s assurance is infallible. However, we as fallible creatures may not realize that the assurance we are receiving is actually the assurance given by the Holy Spirit. We may think that it is possible what we are sensing to be assurance from the Holy Spirit is our wicked hearts deceiving us. I am not sure if the context of chapter 18 will allow us to interpret it this way. I would love to have your thoughts on this.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello JohnV,



> You ask me how I know infallibly that I am saved, but you also ask how I infallibly know the proposition "JohnV is saved". Two different and separate things.



Whatever the distinction is that you are drawing, they are logically equivalent. That is to say, if I infallibly know that I am saved, then it is necessarily the case that I infallibly know the proposition “Brian is saved.” 



> The certainty that I have of salvation is an infallible assurance which the Spirit gives me, not one that I have conjectured and therefore persuaded myself of.



There are two perspectives that we can speak of assurance in this situation. The first perspective is the _quality_ of the assurance being given. This has to do with the person giving the assurance. The second perspective is how the person receiving the assurance knows the _quality_ of the information being given. This has to do with the person receiving the assurance. 

*First Perspective Assurance*

From the first perspective, I can say that whatever proposition the Holy Spirit reveals to us is infallible in the sense that it must be true. So, if the Holy Spirit reveals the proposition of the assurance of salvation of person X, then we can say that this proposition of assurance is infallibly true. It is infallible assurance. But notice, this has nothing to do with the state of knowing of the one receiving the proposition of assurance. Rather, it has to do with the one giving the assurance and the quality of the information being given. 

*Second Perspective Assurance*

From this perspective, I, as the one receiving the assurance have a level of certainty concerning what I think of this event. In this sense, to say that I have infallible assurance of my salvation is to say that I know that the event of my sensing the Holy Spirit's communication of my salvation is infallible. How do you infallibly know what the Holy Spirit reveals to you? How do you know that the “inner sense” you perceive as being the Holy Spirit is not the pizza you ate last night? I am not trying to be flippant here. I am just trying to make a point. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,

I am not sure what you mean by "objective truth." Consider this definition:

*Objective Truth:* Proposition X is objectively true if and only if X is true in the mind of God.

If we use this definition, then in one sense objective truth requires epistemic certainty. God knows every truth with epistemic certainty, and only the truths God knows are objective truth. So, in this sense, all objective truths depend on God's epistemic certainty. However, if you mean that objective truth requires espitemic certainty of creatures, then I would say that under my definition above the answer is no. 

Brian


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Hey Brian, thanks for the response. 

My question was more in reference to whether creatures (e.g. human beings) can have objective knowledge of truth. I’m not really sure how objective is defined, but I would think it would be being certain of the truth of something. So I guess it depends on how someone defines objective. Perhaps that was more of what my question was asking, does objective truth mean, or, require epistemic certainty. Anyways,

Is it possible for me to have certain knowledge of mathematical propositions? For example, 1+1=2. A person might object that everything could be an illusion or the matrix or what have you, but wouldn’t that also count against their objection? If everything is an illusion then their objection would also be an illusion, so there is no reason to believe their argument/objection. If I don’t have grounds for accepting their objection, then has there been established any grounds for doubting my certainty of the mathematical proposition? 

I’m pretty new to philosophy (relatively speaking), so I could be making an elementary mistake, but I might as well throw it out there. ~Caleb

p.s. How do you get the hyperlink to show up for your blog in your signature. I am bad with html and mine isn't showing up right, as you can see in my signature.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Caleb,



> Is it possible for me to have certain knowledge of mathematical propositions? For example, 1+1=2.



What would you consider the level of your certainty is that

∫x^3+tan^2(x)+cos(x)dx=(π^4-π)/4

over the interval from 0 to π? It probably is less than your level of certainty that

9773*192=(39*4)^3, 

which is probably less than your level of certainty that

23,345-23,332=a prime number. 

Why are all of these propositions held at differing levels of certainty? My thinking is that we are all aware of our fallibility, and the more complex the calculations the more uncertainty there is. When someone proposes that they know with philosophical certainty that 2+2=4, they are saying that it is impossible for them to be wrong. Somehow at somepoint they have overome their inability. My position is that this is not the case. They have not overcome their inabilty to make a mistake, but rather the problem has become so simple in their mind that they cannot imagine themselves being wrong. But this is not philosophical certainty. In fact, if one attempts to present a fully axiomatic argument to prove that 2+2=4 one will find himself soon over his head. One source states that in order to arrive at the theorem 2+2=4 from the ground floor in some axiomatic system (ZF-Set Theory with Choice) the proof would be 23,267 steps long! 

My point in all of this is that even though we may not see how we could have made a mistake, this does not mean we have philosophical certainty. Because of our ability to make mistakes we cannot be philosophically certain that we did not make a mistake in concluding from 2+2 the number 4. Again, as we begin to introduce more complex problems it just reveals to us what we already are - fallible creatures. At least this is my fallible answer to your question.  

Brian


----------



## JohnV

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello JohnV,
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the distinction is that you are drawing, they are logically equivalent. That is to say, if I infallibly know that I am saved, then it is necessarily the case that I infallibly know the proposition “Brian is saved.”
> 
> 
> 
> There are two perspectives that we can speak of assurance in this situation. The first perspective is the _quality_ of the assurance being given. This has to do with the person giving the assurance. The second perspective is how the person receiving the assurance knows the _quality_ of the information being given. This has to do with the person receiving the assurance.
> 
> *First Perspective Assurance*
> 
> From the first perspective, I can say that whatever proposition the Holy Spirit reveals to us is infallible in the sense that it must be true. So, if the Holy Spirit reveals the proposition of the assurance of salvation of person X, then we can say that this proposition of assurance is infallibly true. It is infallible assurance. But notice, this has nothing to do with the state of knowing of the one receiving the proposition of assurance. Rather, it has to do with the one giving the assurance and the quality of the information being given.
> 
> *Second Perspective Assurance*
> 
> From this perspective, I, as the one receiving the assurance have a level of certainty concerning what I think of this event. In this sense, to say that I have infallible assurance of my salvation is to say that I know that the event of my sensing the Holy Spirit's communication of my salvation is infallible. How do you infallibly know what the Holy Spirit reveals to you? How do you know that the “inner sense” you perceive as being the Holy Spirit is not the pizza you ate last night? I am not trying to be flippant here. I am just trying to make a point.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian



That's what I said,



> You ask me how I know infallibly that I am saved, but you also ask how I infallibly know the proposition "JohnV is saved". Two different and separate things.



You call it two perspectives, and I call it two separate things. So we differ on how we would describe it. But we are essentially saying the same thing. 

The difference in terminology can be accounted for by other things, but these other things have nothing to do with the substance of it, I would suggest. I'm not talking about "perspectives" about the truth, but about the truth itself. If it is true that JohnV is saved, then it is a truth that is knowable by JohnV. JohnV may have all kinds of perspectives about that truth, but he can know that truth as a truth all the same. It would be knowledge of this truth that enables him to have perspectives about it; but whatever his perspectives may be, they do not change that truth; and he can also know that.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that unless one is infallible, one cannot be 100% certain of anything because there is always the possibility that an error could occur (because we are finite human beings). Makes sense...

p.s. I'm not sure if you skimmed over it, but I was also wondering how you get the hyperlink to show up in your signature. thanks. ~Caleb


----------



## Brian Bosse

Caleb,

Sorry, I missed this. I am not sure how to make the hyper link show up. I know that when I registered and filled in the data that they asked for it just showed up automatically. Sorry, I am somewhat technologically challenged.

Brian
P.S. You summed up my position nicely regarding our ability to have philosophical certainty.


----------

