Is exhaustive knowledge required for knowledge?

[knight4christ8]

Having seen this skimmed over in past threads, I wnated to ask it directly.
Is it true that exhaustive infinite knowledge or access to a being who has such is required in order for one to know truth?

It often seems that this is an assumed belief, but has not been justified to my satisfaction. For exemplary discussion I offer Adam's naming of the creation in Genesis. He named them . . . he did not ask God to distinguish and know the creatures and tell him what to name them so as to have an infinite and omniscient being as a source, but rather God told Adam to name them and this could only be done through the use of Adam's finite powers given him by God. He worked like you and I do, naming the creation through a processional discovery using the powers latent within himself given him by God.

This is knowledge isn't it?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

No one can have ontological knowledge of anything. We cannot even know ourselves completely, because as we examine ourselves, the part of us that is examining ourself is not being examined. Knowledge is familiarity, or the lack of marvel at something extended in space. Adam, by naming the animals of Creation, was becoming familiar with the animals, as prior to him having observed the animals and giving them attributes (phenomenological observation, not decreeing what they are, creating, or making them into something, but simply by convention giving them an observable or discernable characteristic - a name), they were merely forms extended in space. They had no meaning, no familiarity, whatsoever to Adam. They were unknown.

 

[knight4christ8]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
No one can have ontological knowledge of anything. We cannot even know ourselves completely, because as we examine ourselves, the part of us that is examining ourself is not being examined. Knowledge is familiarity, or the lack of marvel at something extended in space. Adam, by naming the animals of Creation, was becoming familiar with the animals, as prior to him having observed the animals and giving them attributes (phenomenological observation, not decreeing what they are, creating, or making them into something, but simply by convention giving them an observable or discernable characteristic - a name), they were merely forms extended in space. They had no meaning, no familiarity, whatsoever to Adam. They were unknown.

What do you mean by ontological . . . Truth? Reason is ontological. It applies to all being . . . all being is being and not non-being.
I would definitely dispute the vague definition that you gave to knolwedge in "familiarity". Many people become familiar with God, but they don't know him. The pharisees were this way.
It seems in the end though that we agree. Meaning is attained progressively and is done so through rational inquiry. Reason is used as a tool to test and categorize meaning.

This doesn't get to the heart of the matter though. Is all we know absolutely dependent on God as the direct source? Can we know something if the Bible does not speak specifically towards that something? As finite beings, is an infinite omniscient source necessary for knowledge? Is knowledge in part, knowledge?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

You think people can become familiar with God Himself? Then He is no longer God.

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[knight4christ8]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
You think people can become familiar with God Himself? Then He is no longer God.

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]

I do not agree at all with your definition of knowledge or familiarity. You would have to justify your use of those definitions before I would consider anything that you have said to have weight.

We can have knowledge of God. Scripture affirms this time and again. See specifically Isaiah 11:9 and Habbukuk 2:14.
So, your definition of knowledge must obviously not be that of which Scripture speaks. A being is known by its act. If you think that Adam's responsibility to name the creation was a vaccuous task, that would be a pretty shallow view. Adam was to know God through understanding creation - filling and subduing the earth. Adam was able to know God through indirect and finite means. His knowledge did not have to be parsed out to him by God's direct impartation of knowledge, but he could dervie it from the act of God. Thus, man can know through a finite source. He does not need exhaustive knowledge in order to know something absolutely. Just my
This was what I was trying to instigate through my Q.

 

[Civbert]

We know God by understanding and believing his Word. This is revealed truth from God, that is believed and understood by the power of the Spirit. It is verbal in form, propositional and rational.

 

[knight4christ8]

Is creation, as an act of God, a source of which we should come to know Him?
Creation is also revealed truth from God. All beings make themselves known through their act. By surveying their actions, one can come to know the attributes from which those actions proceed.
Of course, creation can only be believed and understood by the power of the Spirit also. As no one is willing to look into the Scriptures for knowledge (i.e. salvation, God's mercy and grace, etc.) without the Spirit, no one is willing to look at creation and recognize God's holiness or omnipotence, which would drive them to seek salvation, without the Spirit.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Of course we can know things about God that He has revealed to us by special revelation, but we still can only understand and interpret that knowledge of special revelation according to our experience. By analogy. But, we can never "know" God, in an ontological sense, because then He would cease to be God. On the other side of the coin, were we to know ourselves in the same sense, we would then BECOME God, in a sense.

 

[JohnV]

Let me see if I understand this; tell me if I'm wrong. When you, either Gabriel or Anthony, say that God cannot be known ontologically or He ceases to be God, you are shifting the so-called exhaustive necessity onto the ontological aspect rather than on knowledge. That is, in other words, knowing God, to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge, as opposed to knowing about God intellectually apart from God is more than man can hope for concerning knowledge of God.

Do I have this right?

I'm trying to do two things here. First, I'm implementing my own advice on myself, trying to understand another's position from his standpoint of what bedrock knowledge is, with respect for the other's sense of certainty. And second, trying to pinpoint where either or both of us are wrong. Not that I can do that, but maybe my questions will help.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by knight4christ8

Is creation, as an act of God, a source of which we should come to know Him?

No.

Originally posted by knight4christ8

Creation is also revealed truth from God.

No. "God created all things" is the revealed truth. A rock can not tell you it was created, much more who created it.

Originally posted by knight4christ8

All beings make themselves known through their act. By surveying their actions, one can come to know the attributes from which those actions proceed.

You could survey 1000 paintings by X and never know what X believes about Limited Atonement.

Originally posted by knight4christ8

Of course, creation can only be believed and understood by the power of the Spirit also. As no one is willing to look into the Scriptures for knowledge (i.e. salvation, God's mercy and grace, etc.) without the Spirit, no one is willing to look at creation and recognize God's holiness or omnipotence, which would drive them to seek salvation, without the Spirit.

The Spirit may help us see how God's holiness or omnipotence is confirmed by God's creation, but the "creation" itself is mute about God. God himself gives all men knowledge of himself which takes aways the excuses men give themselves for disobedience. And even with the universal knowledge of God's existence and character, still men suppress this truth - and do not seek after God.

Saving knowledge of God comes by the Scriptures and the power of the Holy Spirit. Damning knowledge is innate in all men, for God has "shown" it to them, but they suppress this knowledge.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Of course we can know things about God that He has revealed to us by special revelation, but we still can only understand and interpret that knowledge of special revelation according to our experience. By analogy. But, we can never "know" God, in an ontological sense, because then He would cease to be God. On the other side of the coin, were we to know ourselves in the same sense, we would then BECOME God, in a sense.

I think there is a "special revelation" that men know because it is innate knowledge. I don't think men need any experiences to understand that there is a God. A blind, deaf, and dumb man knows that truth, infants know it, retarded people know it. But apart from Scripture, they can not justify what they know. Innate knowledge of God is suppressed so that many men deny God.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by JohnV
Let me see if I understand this; tell me if I'm wrong. When you, either Gabriel or Anthony, say that God cannot be known ontologically or He ceases to be God, you are shifting the so-called exhaustive necessity onto the ontological aspect rather than on knowledge. That is, in other words, knowing God, to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge, as opposed to knowing about God intellectually apart from God is more than man can hope for concerning knowledge of God.

Do I have this right?

I'm trying to do two things here. First, I'm implementing my own advice on myself, trying to understand another's position from his standpoint of what bedrock knowledge is, with respect for the other's sense of certainty. And second, trying to pinpoint where either or both of us are wrong. Not that I can do that, but maybe my questions will help.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]

My view is that "knowing God" means to know things about God - to believe propositions about God, his power, his majesty, his perfection. This is knowledge all men have, are born with, and often suppress. Then there is "saving" knowledge (or saving faith) which comes from believing the propositions of the Gospel. This is saving knowledge of God. Again, it is not exhaustive knowledge of God, but is limited to the propositional truths of the Gospel found in Scripture. We still need the Spirit to understand these things correctly, but we can know them and be saved.

I don't understand exactly what you mean by "to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge" means. I'm not taking about physical contact. But all knowledge might be said to be spiritual contact with God. The spirit/mind knows God by knowing about God. The saved spirit/mind knows even more, it knows the Gospel. I suppose this could be described as greater contact with God. But it is impossible to be out of contact with God in that sense. All knowledge that any man has, comes from God ultimately and often directly. So you can not exist and not be in contact with God in that sense.

 

[JohnV]

Anthony:

The words "to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge" was meant to elicit from you a clear distinction between "knowing God" and "knowing about God". You are saying that the former is impossible, that only the latter is possible. If you were to hold the two as distinct, instead of equating them ( i.e., "knowing God" would have to mean "knowing about God", but "knowing about God" does not necessarily mean "knowing God" ), would you say that "knowing God" is possible?

You say "contact with God" means being merely intellectually perceptive of the propositions about God. You say, "The spirit/mind knows God by knowing about God."

What I would like to know, then, is how is this is possible? Are not the same propositions known to unbelievers just as they are to believers? I have met some who know some of these propositions better than I. This was especially the case when I was younger, when as a young believer I would meet an older person who had left the church, who had translated his distrust for the fallible local church into distrust for God. This has been the case when I met people who were unhappy with the spiritual ineptness of the local church, and became entranced by the "spiritual vitality" of these charismatic churches. They blamed the lack of spirituality on the doctrines, rather than seeing that the church was not really believing in the doctrines anymore, and therefore was spiritually lamed.

I have met people who know their Bible rather well, and yet thought I was courting the devil because I had a Webster's Dictionary on my shelf that had all the appearances of being well used. They were right, I was using it a lot; so these people were not jumping to false conclusions about that. I have met some people who were quite put out by the fact that I prayed the Lord's Prayer petition along with all the other members of the same church, put out because I was an Amillennialist, and therefore did not believe in the kingdom of Christ, nor wanted it to come, so he believed. He accosted me with the charge that I was sinning by praying what I did not believe in or even wanted.

All these knew at least the same propositions that I knew when I officially and publicly professed to be a Christian. And some knew more than that. I will not say that I was not a Christian at the time, but rather that I have gained in knowledge since then. But I cannot say that each of these "knew God" in the sense that I "knew God". Yet we could all claim about the same knowledge about God.

If knowing God is merely knowing about God, how do you account for these differences, assuming the same propositional exposure to the truth? ( Did I mention that all the above examples represent people who have made the same profession of faith that I did, from the very same creeds and confessions? )


[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]

 

[knight4christ8]

I think that you are straying far from the confession Civbert.

Chapter 1.1 Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.

Chapter 21.1 The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.

Originally posted by knight4christ8

Is creation, as an act of God, a source of which we should come to know Him?

No.

Originally posted by knight4christ8

Creation is also revealed truth from God.

No. "God created all things" is the revealed truth. A rock can not tell you it was created, much more who created it.

Originally posted by knight4christ8

All beings make themselves known through their act. By surveying their actions, one can come to know the attributes from which those actions proceed.

You could survey 1000 paintings by X and never know what X believes about Limited Atonement.
[/quote]
Okay, so far you have provided no text.
I am not implying that someone can have exhaustive knowledge of God just by seeing his creation. This too is a limited revelation. You may not know a being completely by its painting, but I was thinking more along the lines of our act. When we violate the moral law, it is evidence that we are inconsistent sinful beings, and when we love the Lord it is also evidence that we are being sanctified from that dreadful state of sinfulness.

If rocks cannot reveal the nature of God, then what does it mean to say that the earth is full of his glory "The whole earth is full of his glory. (Isaiah 6:3; Psalm 8; Psalm 29)" and since the creation of the world his invisible attributes have been shown clearly by what has been made (Romans 1)?

Originally posted by knight4christ8

Of course, creation can only be believed and understood by the power of the Spirit also. As no one is willing to look into the Scriptures for knowledge (i.e. salvation, God's mercy and grace, etc.) without the Spirit, no one is willing to look at creation and recognize God's holiness or omnipotence, which would drive them to seek salvation, without the Spirit.

The Spirit may help us see how God's holiness or omnipotence is confirmed by God's creation, but the "creation" itself is mute about God. God himself gives all men knowledge of himself which takes aways the excuses men give themselves for disobedience. And even with the universal knowledge of God's existence and character, still men suppress this truth - and do not seek after God.

Saving knowledge of God comes by the Scriptures and the power of the Holy Spirit. Damning knowledge is innate in all men, for God has "shown" it to them, but they suppress this knowledge. [/quote]

I understand that much of this is your presuppositionalism coming out, but many of the things here that you are saying are directly contrary to Scripture primarily and the Confession secondarily. When Paul speaks of men's accountability is is because God "has made it clear to them by the things that are made". You may think supplementally as most Van Tillians do and attribute innate knowledge in addition to the creation, but you cannot do as you have done and discount the revelation of creation altogether.

Some of my new text is in the main quote, please be sure to read my specific replies. I am not sure how to exclude in-line text with the quote.

[Edited on 04/04/2005 by knight4christ8]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by JohnV
Anthony:

The words "to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge" was meant to elicit from you a clear distinction between "knowing God" and "knowing about God".

What I would like to know, then, is how is this is possible? Are not the same propositions known to unbelievers just as they are to believers? I have met some who know some of these propositions better than I. ...

I have met people who know their Bible rather well, and yet thought I was courting the devil because I had a Webster's Dictionary on my shelf that had all the appearances of being well used. ....

All these knew at least the same propositions that I knew when I officially and publicly professed to be a Christian. And some knew more than that. ...

If knowing God is merely knowing about God, how do you account for these differences, assuming the same propositional exposure to the truth? ( Did I mention that all the above examples represent people who have made the same profession of faith that I did, from the very same creeds and confessions? )

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]

Let me try to be clearer. An unbeliever can not know the proposition "Jesus is the Son of God" because to "know" entails believing the proposition. All things we say we "know", are also things we "believe". Now an unbeliever can understand the "content" of the proposition "Jesus is the Son of God" and understand it's implications. Some unbelievers understand the Bible's content better than believers - but they do not believe these propositions are true - in particular, they do not believe the Bible is God's inerrant Word, or that all the propositions of Scripture are truth revealed to man by God.

So when I say knowing God is knowing about God, I mean that we believe propositions about God, and we can give an account for the truth of those propositions. The account is very simple. First by asserting that the Scripture is the Word of God (the propositions of the Scriptures are true). From this we deduce "Jesus is the Son of God" ...is true. So we account for the knowledge about God from Scripture. (That was a bit over simplified, but it's the basic justification process for showing that Scriptural knowledge is "justified true belief".

So, for the unbeliever - he can understand much of the Scriptures. He can understand many of the propositions about God which the Christian believes, but the unbeliever doe not "know" much about God. He knows innately about the existence of God, but he can not even account for that much.

And for the believer, to know God is to know things about God from the Scriptures, including the Gospel.

As for a "profession of faith", evidently they deceived themselves. They did not truly believe the things they confessed. They did not "know" the things they said they knew. They did not even believe them.

These are the definitions I am using:

• 
  Understanding - knowledge of the relationship between propositions, knowledge of the meaning of terms in propositions, but not necessarily assenting to the propositions and the meanings of terms. You can understand the Theory of Evolution and not believe it.
  
  Belief (or faith) - mental assent to a proposition understood. If you believe in Theory of Relativity, you are saying you understand it and believe the Theory of Relativity is true. You are not saying you can prove it is true, or you can account for it being true.
  
  Knowledge - assent to understood true propositions with the ability to account for the truth of the propositions (justified true belief). To know something entails understanding, belief, truth, and accountability. If you know things about God, you know God, because you understand propositions about God, you believe they are true propositions, and you can account for the truth of those propositions (by Scripture).

So the main difference I see is how we are using the term "know". I'd say the examples you gave are not people who "knew" the same propositions you did. They were people who might have "understood" the same propositions, but could not "know" them because they did not "believe" them.

I think what many seem to call "mere intellectual knowledge" or "head knowledge" is not really knowledge. It does not rise above the level of "understanding". And probably I should not use the phrase "to know about God" because that is easily misunderstood as meaning to understand the meaning of the propositions regarding God, which is not my intention. I mean that to "know God" very specifically means to "know" true propositions regarding God, to believe and understand truths about God that can be accounted for by Scripture.

 

[JohnV]

This will take a bit of care to sort through.

In effect, you are still denying that knowing God is knowing the persons of the Trinity. We cannot "know" Christ as a person, but we can know about Him and believe in what we know about Him, because we can justify what we know about Him from Scripture. Likewise, we can justify what we know about the Scripture because we believe it to be God's Word.

In short, what you are saying is that to "know God" means believing what we understand about God, but also because we can account for it via Scripture. We "know God" because we "know Scripture to be true". And how do we know Scripture to be true? Because we "know God". And "knowing God" means that we understand the propositions about God, believe the propositions about God, and know the propositions about God.

So if I may reduce these: Whence do we know ( understand, believe, and account for ) these propositions? From Scripture. And whence do we know Scripture? From God. And whence do we know God? From Scripture.

Is it possible to understand and know something without believing it? For example, I might understand the theory of Evolution just as well as an Evolutionist, and say I don't believe it to be true. Does that mean that I don't know it? Or is it possible that I might know it better than the Evolutionist, and that is the reason I don't believe it?

Or, another example: what if I knew the Theory of Relativity better than Einstein? And what if I said that I did not believe it because of certain flaws in it that Einstein never saw? And what if I could demonstrably prove these flaws? Would you say that I did not know the Theory of Relativity because I did not believe it or could not account for it? Woujd it not be the case, rather, that I would know it better than Einstein?

So it is possible, is it not, to know some things, that is to believe and account for things which lead to a negative proposition about those things? Knowledge can also entail accounting for the unaccountability of some propositions, can it not? Or, to say it more plainly, I can also "know" that some things are not true, and that I understand them to be not true, can I not?

Now, I understand that this negativity is merely the opposite form of saying the positive. I can know that the theory of Evolution is not true because I can know the positive propositions concerning creation. But still, I can know the theory of Evolution without believing it; and it may be possible that I can know the Theory of Relativity without believing it. Yet you say that "knowing" is believing plus making an account of it.

I also understand that "No one who understands what God is can conceive that God does not exist." ( Anselm. ) And all men know what God is. So all men understand that God exists, and all men believe that God exists, even though they deny it, and all men know that God exists, even though they deny it. Yet not all men "know God". Yet you say that because men do not believe God, they cannot "know God". That is, they may know the propositions about God, but not know God. But may I suggest, then, that they also do not know the propositions about God if they do not believe them? Is that not entailed in your position?

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]

 

[Civbert]

If the knowledge of God, that makes us inexcusable, is based on our observations of the natural world, then we must say that a blind deaf mute is excused - he is saved by his ignorance of the empirical evidence from which men know God.

But then what does this mean:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
(Rom 1:18-19 NKJV)

God reveals this knowledge to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Rom 1:20-21 NKJV)

They "knew" God. They did not discover God, or find God, but they knew what God had revealed to them. We are the things made which understand and know of God because God manifested that knowledge in us.

This is far from being a proof of empirical knowledge of God, rather it is support for innate knowledge from God. We can not understand Rom 1:20 without seeing it in light of Rom 1:19 which says this knowledge is not discovered, but is manifest in us. Not external, but internal.

The "things made" are not the natural world, but it is man himself. From the creation of man, man has known the attributes of God, for God has shown man these things.

Paul is saying that although the Gentiles did not have the Scriptures, they still knew God becaue God has given them that knowledge directly. The issue is the Gentiles not having the Law of God, the Scriptures. The answer is God made himself known to the Gentiles too by "special revelation".

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Civbert]

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Civbert
If the knowledge of God, that makes us inexcusable, is based on our observations of the natural world, then we must say that a blind deaf mute is excused - he is saved by his ignorance of the empirical evidence from which men know God.

But then what does this mean:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
(Rom 1:18-19 NKJV)

God reveals this knowledge to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Rom 1:20-21 NKJV)

They "knew" God. They did not discover God, or find God, but they knew what God had revealed to them. We are the things made which understand and know of God because God manifested that knowledge in us.

This is far from being a proof of empirical knowledge of God, rather it is support for innate knowledge from God. We can not understand Rom 1:20 without seeing it in light of Rom 1:19 which says this knowledge is not discovered, but is manifest in us. Not external, but internal.

The "things made" are not the natural world, but it is man himself. From the creation of man, man has known the attributes of God, for God has shown man these things.

Paul is saying that although the Gentiles did not have the Scriptures, they still knew God becaue God has given them that knowledge directly. The issue is the Gentiles not having the Law of God, the Scriptures. The answer is God made himself known to the Gentiles too by "special revelation".

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Civbert]

So you are saying that man can know ( understand, believe, and account for ) God and yet not believe Him?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by JohnV

So you are saying that man can know ( understand, believe, and account for ) God and yet not believe Him?

No. Knowledge requires belief. Everything you know, you believe. All men believe in God. When I use the term unbelievers, I mean those who do not know the Gospel. They do not believe in Jesus.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Civbert]

 

[JohnV]

Then how do you account for this passage by your own meanings,

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." ( Rom 1:18-21 )?

It is clear that those who have become futile in their thoughts and darkened in their hearts, then, would not have known God, because they did not believe Him. Yet it is said that, though they knew God, they did not glofify Him. That is, they did not believe Him. How, then, could they have known God. It does not say "knew about God", but "knew God", which in your definition is the same, because "knowing" included understanding, believing, and accounting for. Are you using the term the same as God's Word here? If so, how can it be that they "knew God" but " did not glorify Him as God"?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by JohnV
Then how do you account for this passage by your own meanings,

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." ( Rom 1:18-21 )?

It is clear that those who have become futile in their thoughts and darkened in their hearts, then, would not have known God, because they did not believe Him. Yet it is said that, though they knew God, they did not glofify Him. That is, they did not believe Him. How, then, could they have known God. It does not say "knew about God", but "knew God", which in your definition is the same, because "knowing" included understanding, believing, and accounting for. Are you using the term the same as God's Word here? If so, how can it be that they "knew God" but " did not glorify Him as God"?

The verses do not say they did not believe in God. They do believe in God - that agrees with my definition of belief and the Scriptures. "They knew God" entails they believed in God. And we can account for that knowledge because Scripture says they knew. So the knowledge of God includes understanding, believing, and accountability.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Civbert]

 

[JohnV]

So, then, a person who is an unbeliever can believe in God, and know Him, ( that is, they can account for Him ), and yet not be a believer? That is, they do not "know God", even though they "know God"?

Don't get me wrong, Anthony; I'm trying to get a handle on this. After your answer, lets leave it for a day to think about these things. OK?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by JohnV
So, then, a person who is an unbeliever can believe in God, and know Him, ( that is, they can account for Him ), and yet not be a believer? That is, they do not "know God", even though they "know God"?

Don't get me wrong, Anthony; I'm trying to get a handle on this. After your answer, lets leave it for a day to think about these things. OK?

Please understand. The Bible makes it clear that all men believe in God, they all know God. This is not a question. The question is do they know the Gospel. Knowledge of God does not save (in fact it damns). Knowledge of the Gospel does save.

The "believer/unbeliever" question regards belief in the Gospel, not just God the Creator. Knowledge of God does not make one a Christian - and that is what I mean when I say "believer" - it is a person who knows/believes the Gospel. All men believe in God, they know He exists and he is powerful and the creator of all things. But they don't know Christ - that Jesus is God's Son who died to save the elect.

 

[JohnV]

from Civbert
The Bible makes it clear that all men believe in God, they all know God. This is not a question. The question is do they know the Gospel. Knowledge of God does not save (in fact it damns). Knowledge of the Gospel does save.

Maybe if we switch our focus from "knowing" to the object of knowledge we are talking about, namely God, then we might be able to understand each other.

Would you not say that to know someone personally is better than to know about someone? I mean, I can know about the Queen of England, and even know a lot about her, just by reading everything I can get my hands on that relates to her. But that is a different kind of knowledge than knowing my friend, whom I am able to observe often enough to build a kind of trust with him, an unspoken and non-verbal knowledge. It can be propositionalized, and perhaps we do that from time to time, but most often we do not put our knowledge into propositional form. But the fact of it is, that we learn all about our friends, and learn to trust them, by experience, and only afterward consider what may be propositionalized.

If such knowledge is greater, through experience, would you say that one's knowledge of God is enhanced more by experience than by proposition? At first we learn about God, through His Word, but then we grow to know God by living what He has told us through His Word, by constant prayer to Him as a person but as God, and by trusting that He is indeed right there as He promised so as to protect and guide us in all circumstances? Is not such knowledge greater than and also prior to propositions about His character? Is not the propositional revelation from the Word a result of Christ's and the Spirit's communion with the Father, and desiring to inform us of this relationship, and of His love for us?

And, lastly, how do we love in return if our knowledge is confined to propositional knowledge? I am not suggesting the what we know may not always be put into porpositional form, but rather that we know things before we are able to put them into propositional form; and that this is more reflective of the relationship of the Father to Son and the Spirit, which is not time-bound as propositions are, and which the Father wishes with us in eternity.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by JohnV

from Civbert
The Bible makes it clear that all men believe in God, they all know God. This is not a question. The question is do they know the Gospel. Knowledge of God does not save (in fact it damns). Knowledge of the Gospel does save.

Maybe if we switch our focus from "knowing" to the object of knowledge we are talking about, namely God, then we might be able to understand each other.

Would you not say that to know someone personally is better than to know about someone? I mean, I can know about the Queen of England, and even know a lot about her, just by reading everything I can get my hands on that relates to her. But that is a different kind of knowledge than knowing my friend, whom I am able to observe often enough to build a kind of trust with him, an unspoken and non-verbal knowledge. It can be propositionalized, and perhaps we do that from time to time, but most often we do not put our knowledge into propositional form. But the fact of it is, that we learn all about our friends, and learn to trust them, by experience, and only afterward consider what may be propositionalized.

I'd say that to know what the person thinks and believes is better than to know what they look like, or how they walk, or if they have an accent. The kind of knowledge one gains by being in the physical presence is very limited. More is learned from speaking to them, learning how they think about things. For instants, from our conversations, you know me in more depth than many of my co-workers who see me daily. If you could read the personal dairy of the Queen, and she could reads yours, even if you never met in person, you'd have a deeper and more complete knowledge of the Queen than most people who spend time with her.

Trust is not developed through direct observations. It must be combined with hearing your friends words and comparing them to his actions. And even that does not require direct observation, but can be achieved through a reliable mediator.

Originally posted by JohnV

If such knowledge is greater, through experience, would you say that one's knowledge of God is enhanced more by experience than by proposition? At first we learn about God, through His Word, but then we grow to know God by living what He has told us through His Word, by constant prayer to Him as a person but as God, and by trusting that He is indeed right there as He promised so as to protect and guide us in all circumstances? Is not such knowledge greater than and also prior to propositions about His character? Is not the propositional revelation from the Word a result of Christ's and the Spirit's communion with the Father, and desiring to inform us of this relationship, and of His love for us?

Yes and no. The knowledge does not increase through experience, but our understanding and feelings of trust might. But then, there are times when our feelings of trust can be lost for a time. We can go through times where our trust is hindered because we go through a painful experience. God is still no less trustworthy, but our emotions can overcome our reasoning, leaving us with a sense of uncertainty.

The sole source of knowledge we have of God is Scripture. We grow in knowledge and faith by better understanding God through his word. Our personal experiences can either hinder or aid our emotional response to this knowledge. But the experience itself does not gain us anything we can reliably call knowledge. In fact, I think the situation needs to be reversed. We need to interpret our "experience" in the light of Scripture to better understand our experiences. We do not interpret or better understand Scripture in terms of our experiences.

Originally posted by JohnV

And, lastly, how do we love in return if our knowledge is confined to propositional knowledge? I am not suggesting the what we know may not always be put into porpositional form, but rather that we know things before we are able to put them into propositional form; and that this is more reflective of the relationship of the Father to Son and the Spirit, which is not time-bound as propositions are, and which the Father wishes with us in eternity.

Our knowledge is propositional, but that does not mean it is always verbalized. But there is no knowledge that is non-propositional. We can know things and not verbalize them - but we know God's laws through propositions. And we can not love God, unless we know the Law. Love is a duty we are given by God. We are commanded to love - and we do so by obeying God's laws and doing good to our neighbors. Without knowledge of the Scriptures, we can not love God or anyone else. So in answer to your question "how do we love in return if our knowledge is confined to propositional knowledge?" - the only way to love God is by knowledge of the propositions of Scripture.

 

[knight4christ8]

I lost my last post.

I will make this short. It seems that you both have gone a seperate direction, or may be getting a bit more detailed than would allow me time to participate.

Civbert,

You stated that a blind and deaf mute would be excusable from the standpoint that Creation is what convicts. However, mere existence of a being attests to their creation and they are thus inexcusable atleast at this point. Even more so though, a human limited so greatly in their abilities would undeniably have a greater affirmation of their finitude, and thus this would attest to their having been created by an infinite Creator - Romans 1 states his eternal power and divine attributes are known by what has been made and physical inabilities do not hinder this.

Please do not take this wrong . . . I may be misunderstanding you. It seems that you arguing against Scripture as an Arminian argues against Romans 9 or Ephesians 1, etc. - the most clear passages on election. Creation undeniably has a purpose in holding man accountable. Most Van Tillian presuppositionalists refer to it as a supplemental source of accountability, but you must atleast affirm this supplemental nature in your beliefs, though you may not believe that it is Creation and Creation primarily that leaves men inexcusable. If you do not do this, you are fighting Scripture blatantly.

 

[JohnV]

Gregory:

I'm sorry if this took you off your topic. I was attempting to get to the bottom of the assertion that one can not know God ontologically. If you read back over the posts between Anthony and I, you will find that we are slowly moving to the position that only the terminology is different, but our position is similar. Anthony is showing that his propositional knowledge is the in the main similar to what you and I would call ontological knowledge. In fact, no categorical difference exists anymore once you embrace Anthony's terminology. So I am working toward that end, to show that this is difference over words, not over substance; and then working toward the substance.

But for the most part, I think, we are exploring the thing that you began with, namely whether our knowledge of God or of things need to be exhaustive in order for us to say "we know with certainty." Anthony's point, which I think is the most valuable contribution to this discussion so far, is that we can know based on the authority of One who does know exhaustively, and since He says it is so, then we can also be certain within ourselves that it is so, and so also assert that certainty to others. Not that we have that authority in and of ourselves, but that the One who does have that authority dwells within us.

I hope this ties things together a bit. I didn't mean to derail your thread. Please forgive me.

 

[knight4christ8]

It does . . . I think.

I do not agree though that knowledge solely is attained by God's spoken or written word. This is my problem. I believe that we are also to know God through his act in creation. Though it is not sufficient for salvation, everlasting life is to know God the Father and the One whom he has sent (John 17:4). Going down these lines, I believe that we should strive to know God in creation and thereby establish the basics that were to have condemned us, thus coming to a greater knowledge of our self-absorbed nature in sin. It concerns me that more Christians do not think in this way. The confession seems to emphasize the knowledge that can be obtained from creation, but few really try to explore what it means that the earth is full of his glory (Isaiah 6:3).
Can we really even understand the depth of our foolish sin and what Scripture has to say to us unless we have the more basic knowledge of Creation understood? I am implying that we often try to understand the less basic without understanding the more basic first. Scripture assumes that we know who God is in Gen. 1:1, yet few of us really seek God as he has intended to reveal himself in Creation.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Are you all talking about knowledge of God, or knowing God (ontologically). If the latter, then I still have major issues with saying that one can "know" God. We know ABOUT God through special revelation, and are able to understand that revelation according to the wisdom given to us through our fear of God and our experiences, but to say someone can "know" God is, I believe, an extraordinary statement. It makes YOU God.

 

[JohnV]

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article II
By What Means God Is Made Known unto Us
We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says (Rom. 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation.

There are aspects of our condemnation which lie hidden, but revealed in Scripture. Such as the depth and utter lostness of our situation, without hope. These are only hinted at in the creation, when we can find no hope in it, but only see the problem; but we do not see that no hope will be found in it. There is a difference between our not finding hope in our limitation, and knowing that even outside our limitation there is no hope to be found in the creation.

We also know our own finitude, and know that we need help. But we cannot know that there is no help outside of Christ. We still might search elsewhere our whole life, not realizing that there is no hope. But only when we turn to the Scriptures do we come to grips with the why and how of the question concerning that we are lost, namely that of guilt of sin through the fall our forebearer, Adam; and that we daily increase our guilt. We find that it is not that we are not big enough, or smart enough, or informed enough, but that we are guilty, personally guilty and cut off.

And then, when we turn to the Scriptures, we find that a solution to this is given, and that it is trustworthy. We find many proofs that the Bible is truth, and that it truly gives hope, and that the salvation from guilt is real. We have historical witnesses, historical affirmations, present witnesses, and present affirmations. The Bible does what it promises in actual experience.

Thus here we are again, the before Scripture and the after Scripture, as it were, references to the creation as a revelation of God.

This is how I understand this very important article of the Christian faith.