Is exhaustive knowledge required for knowledge?

[JohnV]

Originally posted by 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.

How does knowing God make me God? I know my wife, and yet I am not her. It is not merely knowing the propositions about her, but knowing her as a person, the very thing the propositions are about. Why is it not the same, and greater, with God?

We are not disobeying any distance between God and us by knowing Him, for we cannot know Him unless He first knows us. And this is what He indeed does. He can see inside our hearts, beyond the propositions. And we too can get to know God when He interacts with us through His Word and the Spirit, and when we pray to Him through the Spirit uttering our petitions which are too deep for words.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

That's how God knows us, in ways too deep for words. And we have an inkling of what that means because we know and love our loved ones in ways too deep for words. Why is not knowledge and love of God greater?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I have huge philosophical problems with the way everyone in this thread is using the word "know." I guess I'll just stay out of the discussion.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I have huge philosophical problems with the way everyone in this thread is using the word "know." I guess I'll just stay out of the discussion.

I wish you wouldn't. I think if you gave your definition of "know" or "knowledge", we might be able to figure out why our views are different and how they may be similar. Clearly my understanding of the word "know" is stricter than John's, which explains a lot of our differences, and helps us see areas of agreement. Much useless disagreement comes down to what we mean by common terms. If you mean something different than I do by "know" - we will have a hard time coming to common ground, or clarifying our differences, until we define our terms.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I heard one of the common people say, "he knew me right away." Then I asked myself: What is it that the common people take for knowledge? What do they want when they want "knowledge"? Nothing more than this: Something strange is to be reduced to something familiar. And we philosophers - have we really mean more than this when we have spoken of knowledge? What is familiar means what we are used to so that we no longer marvel at it, our everyday, some rule in which we are stuck, anything at all in which we feel at home. Look, isn't our need for knowledge precisely this need for the familiar, the will to uncover under everything strange, unusual, and questionable something that no longer disturbs us?
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Aphorism 355, pp. 300-301

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The amount of "knowledge" we have of God is extremely limited. I don't think we can say that we "know" God. What we know of God is by means of His voluntary condescension through a covenantal agreement, by way of Mediation (through Jesus Christ), and by facility of the Holy Spirit. To know about someone or something is vastly different than to know someone or something, in the way I understand the terms.

The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter VII, Article I

Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

 

[knight4christ8]

I definitely discourage any text that you bring from Nietche. He was a confused and very lost man. I am confused as to why you would think that he is justified in such a definition, and why you would equate his definition of "know" to the Bible's definition of "know". Paul says again and again that we were saved by the "Knowledge" of Christ, and he definitely doesn't imply that we become more familiar with him so as to lose our marvel for him. Neither is this the way "knowledge" is used in Isaiah 11:9 or Habbakuk 2:14.
This clearly is the reason for your misunderstanding of us. In no way would we, or the Bible, mean 'familiar', so as to not marvel, when the word "knowledge" is used. As I come to know my wife better and the intimacy intended in this relationship by Christ, I come to marvel more and more at what a wonderful thing it is. With knowledge marvel must increase.
I would be interested to hear from any one else as to whether Christians should put more effort into showing that the glory of God is clear in creation. If it is what convicts (Rom 1), should we be able to show it as redeemed people of God?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Gregory, you are still using knowledge to mean "knowing about" or "awareness" of God.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The amount of "knowledge" we have of God is extremely limited. I don't think we can say that we "know" God. What we know of God is by means of His voluntary condescension through a covenantal agreement, by way of Mediation (through Jesus Christ), and by facility of the Holy Spirit. To know about someone or something is vastly different than to know someone or something, in the way I understand the terms.

The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter VII, Article I

Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

[/quote]

So you can say that you know about God, but you do not know God, in that sense? And from that you can ascertain that I cannot know God either?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The amount of "knowledge" we have of God is extremely limited. I don't think we can say that we "know" God. What we know of God is by means of His voluntary condescension through a covenantal agreement, by way of Mediation (through Jesus Christ), and by facility of the Holy Spirit. To know about someone or something is vastly different than to know someone or something, in the way I understand the terms.

The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter VII, Article I

Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

So you can say that you know about God, but you do not know God, in that sense? And from that you can ascertain that I cannot know God either? [/quote]

In the context of this discussion, no, you cannot "know" God. You know about God, you know what He has revealed to you in Revelation (Scripture), but you do not "know" God. If you did, you would be God.

 

[mgeoffriau]

It seems that whatever you may be gaining in precision, you are losing in the common usage. We have to be careful not to make the term "knowledge" meaningless.

I think you are neglecting the fact that God has not simply disclosed certain facts about Himself, but He has also entered into a relationship with His people.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
It seems that whatever you may be gaining in precision, you are losing in the common usage. We have to be careful not to make the term "knowledge" meaningless.

Good point, and I think that's one of the common problems of philosophers, their definitions and terminology gets so detailed and complicated, that they loose site of the whole point - which is to clarify and understand language and meaning and thought. Sometimes they need to step back and ask if they have gotten so far from the normal use of language so that they are no longer talking about something that makes sense in the real world.

Originally posted by mgeoffriau

I think you are neglecting the fact that God has not simply disclosed certain facts about Himself, but He has also entered into a relationship with His people.

Your view comes with a lot of philosophical history - and it's not one that has a clear foundation in biblical thought. Ask yourself how often does scripture use the term or concept "relationship". And certainly there are some similarities, but it not in the modern sense of the term.

However, "knowledge" and "wisdom" are all critical concepts in the Scriptures. I'd even say that these ideas better explain the meaning of biblical "relationship" then the modern meaning does. The modern meaning is mystical and "experiential" and is antithetical to the intellect and spirit. But the biblical relationship we have with God is built by knowing his Word. And we can say knowing God's Word is knowing Christ - who is God's "Word".

The biblical relationship is not separate from belief and understand of Scripture - it is found in our faith in the truths of Scripture. God's "disclosure" of facts (Scripture) is the source of our relationship with God (knowing God). Knowing God means knowing God's Word.

 

[Puritanhead]

Wisdom is preferable to knowledge in everyway. A man can be puffed up with knowledge and it will only corrupt his heart and lead him astray. Knowledge is not discerned properly without wisdom.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Originally posted by Civbert
The modern meaning is mystical and "experiential" and is antithetical to the intellect and spirit. But the biblical relationship we have with God is built by knowing his Word. And we can say knowing God's Word is knowing Christ - who is God's "Word".

Agreed. When I say "relationship," I intend not some amorphous, feeling-driven stomach-ache. I intend in a more denotative sense -- that is, in what way God relates to us (as Creator/creature, King/subject, Father/son, Savior/reprobate, etc.).

I would argue that we may need to separate between how we learn about our relationship with God, and the relationship itself. I do not think that our relationship with God can be boiled down to our comprehension and acceptance of factual statements in Scripture.

What I mean is that Scripture is God's communication of His relationship to us, but it is not the relationship itself. It is God's explanation of the relationship, and the means by which I come to know of God's condescension to us.

I guess I'm just trying to point out that Scripture is the means by which I apprehend the object, but it is not the object itself. God's love and mercy for worthless sinners is the object, the substance of the relationship.

Originally posted by Civbert
The biblical relationship is not separate from belief and understand of Scripture - it is found in our faith in the truths of Scripture. God's "disclosure" of facts (Scripture) is the source of our relationship with God (knowing God). Knowing God mean knowing God's Word.

Agreed.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
It seems that whatever you may be gaining in precision, you are losing in the common usage. We have to be careful not to make the term "knowledge" meaningless.

Good point, and I think that's one of the common problems of philosophers, their definitions and terminology gets so detailed and complicated, that they loose site of the whole point - which is to clarify and understand language and meaning and thought. Sometimes they need to step back and ask if they have gotten so far from the normal use of language so that they are no longer talking about something that makes sense in the real world.

This is just silly.

 

[mgeoffriau]

OK.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Which "normal use of language" definition of "know" are you using, then, when you assert that one can, in fact, "know" God?

know
v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows
v. tr.

To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: "œa black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.

v. intr.
To possess knowledge, understanding, or information.
To be cognizant or aware.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Anyway, I would argue that unless you can present a credible argument for fixing the definitions of words, that the only option that keeps words from becoming meaningless and absurd is common usage.

You can choose to use the term "knowledge" in a different manner than is common, but in doing so you expand the definition and are complicit in making the word meaningless.

In any case, I'm still not sure I understand what exactly the distinction is that you are making, so feel free to explain further.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Which "normal use of language" definition of "know" are you using, then, when you assert that one can, in fact, "know" God?

know
v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows
v. tr.

To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: "œa black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.

v. intr.
To possess knowledge, understanding, or information.
To be cognizant or aware.

Several of them apply in different ways, but the ones I bolded I think apply most fully when I say that I can know God.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
In any case, I'm still not sure I understand what exactly the distinction is that you are making, so feel free to explain further.

We are not *absolutely* familiar with God, therefore we do not, and cannot *EVER* "know" God. Even in a glorified state, God will still be God and we will still be "man." God will always be a marvel before us, always a mystery, and always outside of our ability to *absolutely* predict His ... "actions", for lack of a better word. If we *knew* God, then we would know everything about Him. We would know what He "thinks" about everything, and therefore, we would be on the same level as God. We would be God. We would have Him, by convention perhaps, "in a box", which we could say "look, here is God and this is exactly how He is and who He is, as He is no longer a mystery to us."

My proposition, therefore, is that we can (as Paul asserts in Rom 1:19), know "about" God, but we cannot have any type of absolute knowledge "of" God; that is, of His being. To claim such would be to restrict God and remove Him of His Godliness and sovereignty altogether. We would become God, practically speaking.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Also, being in communion with God is different than "knowing God", in the way I am using it in this discussion. Of course we commune with God (by way of Mediator) through His means of grace, but this doesn't give us absolute knowledge of God. Completely different, in my opinion.

 

[Civbert]

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English:

Knowledge

1. A clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact; the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of our ideas.

We can have no knowledge of that which does not exist. God has a perfect knowledge of all his works. Human knowledge is very limited, and is mostly gained by observation and experience.

2. Learning; illumination of mind.

Ignorance is the curse of God, knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven.

3. Skill; as a knowledge of seamanship.

4. Acquaintance with any fact or person. I have no knowledge of the man or thing.

5. Cognizance; notice. Ruth 2.

6. Information; power of knowing.

7. Sexual intercourse. But it is usual to prefix carnal; as carnal knowledge.

KNOWLEDGE, for acknowledge or avow, is not used.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Why have you introduced the modifier "absolutely"?

To borrow a previous example, I know my wife. I am familiar with her. This does not mean that there are not things about her that I do not know. Instead, it refers to a general familiarity.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Which "normal use of language" definition of "know" are you using, then, when you assert that one can, in fact, "know" God?

The point is that whatever definition you use, if it is too obtuse and technical (as is common in philosophy), no one is going to understand you, and you are not going to understand them. The goal of philosophy is not create new meanings for terms, but to understand or what terms mean as used.

I'd never say that to "know" God means to "know" everything God knows - such that we are of one mind with God - or all things that can be predicated of God. But we can know things univocally about God (without equivocation). You know math if you know the answers of your multiplication tables - even if you don't know what the square root of 78 equals. So total or exhaustive knowledge is not implied by "knowing" God.

 

[JohnV]

I have been reading the posts in this and several other threads. At the present time I am going through Warfield's "Apologetics". This is with reference to comparing Van Til's 1932 Syllabus to his "My Credo". There are many things that are very intriguing at this time.

It would not be helpful to the flow of the discussions to add my thoughts at this present time. But I wonder which of the views expressed in these threads represent Presuppositionalism? Or are they all Presuppositional, but of different schools? I know there is a difference between Dooyweerdian presuppositionalism and Van Tillian presuppositionalism, and also that Van Til and Clark had their differences. But the question at hand, namely concerning knowledge, and the various answers given to it, undercuts all these differences and makes a new path, it seems to me. While the "self-attesting Christ of Scripture" was the starting point for Van Til, it seems to be that it now means no more than "the Scripture-attesting Christ of Scripture" In other words, I'm seeing a disparity of thought here with the earlier Van Til.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by mgeoffriau
Why have you introduced the modifier "absolutely"?

To borrow a previous example, I know my wife. I am familiar with her. This does not mean that there are not things about her that I do not know. Instead, it refers to a general familiarity.

So you know about your wife.

 

[mgeoffriau]

No. I know my wife.

I'm still wondering why you stipulate that one must be absolutely familiar with something in order to know it.

Under this definition, one could never say that we know anything, which would indeed make the common usage of the term "knowledge" meaningless.

 

[JohnV]

What if I had a teacher who had a PhD? That is, he is an authority on his subject. And he tells me some basic or fundamental tenets of the subject he has his degree in. It is considered authoritative by almost everyone. If he says its so, then its so, right? Do I know, then, that what he tells me is the truth, based on his authority? I mean, I know and trust his authority on the subject; and based on that authority which I trust, he has told me something that I can take to be absolutely true. I am not an authority on that subject, but he is; and therefore now I know something authoritatively true based on the fact that an authoritative person has told me it is true.

Do I, then, know something with as authoritatively true?

What if God told me something as true? Do I know, then, that it is true?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by JohnV
What if I had a teacher who had a PhD? That is, he is an authority on his subject. And he tells me some basic or fundamental tenets of the subject he has his degree in. It is considered authoritative by almost everyone. If he says its so, then its so, right? Do I know, then, that what he tells me is the truth, based on his authority?

No. This is an "appeal to authority" - there is no logical connection between a persons credentials, expertise, or authority and the truth of any statement he makes. Those are completely independent. Even in his field, a PhD can be, and quite frankly is often, flat out wrong in what he claims. Name the top 50 evolutionists, and I will show you 50 people who assert false propositions.

...

Originally posted by JohnV
What if God told me something as true? Do I know, then, that it is true?

That's a different situation. Although we only know God's word is true if we accept that God's Word is true on faith. And if we start with the axiom "God's Word is true" then we can deduce "Jesus is Lord" from the Axiom. The logical justification for knowing Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of sin" is to infer it from the Axiom, for all propositions of Scripture are true. This is essentially the way God speaks to us.

I think where you are going is that we know God because he speaks to us through His revelation (Scripture). That's true. I only had a problem with the route you were taking with the "appeal to authority" argument. Right conclusion, wrong argument.

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Civbert]

 

[JohnV]

What if God told someone something, and that someone told me? Do I then know something to be true? Let's say that the person whom God told was trustworthy in my estimation. Obviously he would be trustworthy in God's estimation too, if He deigned to tell him something.

Let's say this person was a minister of the gospel. If God told him something, and this person told me, then do I know something as true?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

We can know "things", but we cannot know "persons." We can know about persons, or know of persons, but we cannot know them.

I may know many things about my girlfriend, and feel intimately connected to her on some level (communion, perhaps?), but I do not "know" her. I can't predict what she will do in every situation, or what she will say before she says it. I may be able to guess well, but there will always be "marvel" between us. Mystery. That is the difference I am trying to emphasize. When the Bible says we "know" God, it means we are in communion with Him. Romans 1 speaks of knowing "about" God, which is different, in my opinion.