TB:
I hear you. I think I know what you're struggling with. But it could be that you are still confusing what you want to believe, claiming to know, with the truth.
Again, let me say that we do not know that much about the whole baptism issue to draw the kinds of conclusions you wish to draw. Yes, we can know enough to be convinced, but we do not know all there is to know. You may be confusing sufficient knowledge with exhaustive knowledge.
Let me show you where this is confusing:
Originally posted by Theological Books
JohnV,
That may be helpful, but allow me to be a bit more simple. Let us assume I am a credobaptist, but that paedobaptism is true.
That which justifies my beliefs in credobaptism cannot be consistent with the truth, for true justification does not lend itself to a contradictory conclusion.
You have this right. And I must also admit that, were credo baptism true, then my paedo conviction would be false. Though we know each of our views to be true, yet one of us is wrong. So one of us "knows" what he cannot possibly know, because you cannot know to be true what is not true.
Regardless, for whatever reasons, my I perceive my justification as true and valid, which lends me to believe the proposition of credobaptism. I have not come across any reasoning or arguments that can disprove my justification for believing credobaptism, though there are necessarily arguments present if my justification and knowledge is invalid and false (respectively).
OK, so now we are talking about perception, not knowledge. What we perceive may not always be true. It may be that we are not perceiving the whole vista, but think ourselves to be perceiving what is merely an extrapolation of what we do actually perceive.
Let us say I have studied the arguments and justification for paedobaptism from several leading scholars and genuine authorities (i.e. John Murray, Meredith Kline, Robert Strimple, John Calvin, John Owen, William Ames, Louis Berkhof, Herman Bavink, Charles Hodge, Robert Reymond, etc.).
Do I *KNOW* the proposition of credobaptism, or is my knowledge about credobaptism still false (because I cannot know what is not true)? Or, vice versa, do I actually *KNOW* the proposition of paedobaptism, since it is true, and therefore know the truth even though (for whatever rational or irrational reasons--i.e. there is yet to be written in the resources I've studied and read a rational objection to the justification of credobaptism) I disbelieve and do not accept paedobaptism?
But now you are talking about knowing the positions of men. By this you do not necessarily know either of the views. It takes a lot more than that. I've read numerous objections to a view that I held once, and they were to me as mere triflings with the subject. But later, after I matured, those same objections were more persuasive. My own understanding had to grow in order to truly understand what was being told me long before. In other words, your own understanding may not be ready for the truth yet. It takes humility too to understand truth.
If the proposition paedobaptism is objectively and absolutely true, and I know the proposition of paedobaptism, yet I neither agree with the justification of it (for rational or irrational reasons), nor accept the proposition as true (for rational or irrational reasons), do I still *KNOW* the truth?
Yes, you can know it and not yet perceive it. We have a euphemism for that, when "the lights (finally) come on."
The reason I speak of paedobaptism, as opposed to one's knowledge of God (his existence and his moral will), is because paedobaptism is something known a posteriori (or as deduced/induced from special revelation, or from an outside source). Correct? While knowledge of the proposition of God (i.e. his existence and that which constitutes his moral will) is a priori, or that which is known without experience. Correct?
This may be the problem. I wrote what I wrote before because a person can still deny objective truth if he wants to, and claim to know other than is the truth, and even other than he really knows. Everyone knows of God, but the great majority of men still deny Him. But my point was that I do know God by experience, and is not merely an assent to a proposition or a philosophical position. I would further say that my certainty about everything I claim to know is based upon that prior knowledge. I cannot know which baptism position is true if I don't first have a firm hold on the knowledge of God. I have to know and love His character in order to know what He is teaching me.
No matter how strong the philosophical arguments we are presented with, our intellect is only limited to what we know, and our knowledge is not exhaustive, even if we know exhaustively everything that men have written about it.
So, I'm not trying to speak of "knowledge" regarding things a priori (God and his existence), but that which is "knowledge" regarding things a posteriori.
Perhaps you can now see why this is confusing to me. How can you claim to know what you cannot possibly know? You are making a claim to being able to put together a whole puzzle when we all know that we do not have all the pieces to do that. But we do have all the pieces we need to put together the puzzle of God's existence. We will find that we have a lot left over when we're done. The picture is complete long before all the pieces are in place.
So I am talking about knowledge in a different way. I would not equate the word "knowledge" with knowing everything, because none of us are up to that; yet we can have a sure knowledge.
Is one knowing something contingent upon the acceptance or denial of what valid justification (which is necessary to truly believe a proposition)? Or, regardless of one's acceptance of the justification (opting to believe in other justifications for a particular belief for either rational or irrational reasons), do can they truly know that which they do not truly believe to be true?
If you can accept that what appears as a valid justification for belief may later not be sufficient to justify belief, then you will know better the place of faith in belief. Do you believe because of the philosophical justifications? Or do you believe because you want to trust your God with all your heart, and are following truth in love for Him? Do you trust His leading? For you cannot possible know on your own what you would need to know in order to make the decision one way or the other. Honestly speaking, we do not know enough. But if we know His character, and folllow His Word, trusting fully in the Spirit's illuminating work, then we can know.
Seriously, people, am I spinning my wheels here? I know I'm repeating myself over and over, but that's only because I cannot see my "questions" actually being addressed. If my questions are being (or have been) addressed, please, point that out to me and explain how they have been addressed. I may just be looking for an answer and I don't know what it looks like.
This spinning of wheels is common to all of us. This is what we go through as we examine ourselves for being faithful to the truth that God is leading us in. This is the kind of introspection that eventually leads to trusting in God's hand, not in our own. The questions you are asking are being answered in bits and pieces. Your desire to have one of us come up with the one answer that will satisfy your need is commendable. But most often the answers do not come that way, as the most basic problem is not that we do not know but that we will not yet understand. Augustine calls that the weight upon the soul, resulting from original sin. It is still there even after we are redeemed, and slowly lifting that weight off is what we call sanctification.
I know this doesn't answer all your questions, but be assured that I know well the struggle. I've struggled with this all my life, from the time I first saw my father reprove a Jehovah's Witness with firm confidence in what he was saying. I want to know that confidence too. But I found that it was not in me knowing, but in me believing. For many things I already knew, I found, but just had them in disarray in my own mind. There was a lot I needed to learn, but mostly it was a matter of putting things I already knew in the right order. In other words, knowing is more of a submission than it is a conquering of philosophical propositions through intellectual prowess.
I hope this helps you.
[Edited on 8-12-2005 by JohnV]
concerning this issue. Thanks for your help!*
mistake and I apologize for wasting time. 
