Knowing if Full
- Thread starter Roldan
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
We see now dimly, later face to face.....
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
We shall know as we are known. I am known as a finite being. I will never be an eternal being. I will live for ever on but I will have never been eternal in nature. I will have always had a beginning. Thus in one sense I am only finite and always will be. So I will never have omniscience. But I will be full of knowledge. I will known as full as I am finite. And I shall see Him face to face.
[Edited on 11-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]
We shall know as we are known. I am known as a finite being. I will never be an eternal being. I will live for ever on but I will have never been eternal in nature. I will have always had a beginning. Thus in one sense I am only finite and always will be. So I will never have omniscience. But I will be full of knowledge. I will known as full as I am finite. And I shall see Him face to face.
[Edited on 11-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
or beard to beard........:bigsmile:
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
So will we be learning throughout eternity?
Yes, because something can be infinite and not eternal.
(epignōsomai). I shall fully (epi) know. Future middle indicative as ginōskō (I know) is present active and epegnōsthēn (I was fully known) is first aorist passive (all three voices).
[Edited on 11-7-2005 by Saiph]
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
I interpret Paul speaking about the complete and final (perfect) word of God that will come after the Apostolic era.
Jesus treated scriptures as a whole, God breathed revelation, and so did the Apostles. The Apostles certainly knew they were writing scripture. James speaks of the word of God as a mirror seeing ourselves, and here Paul is speaking of a mirror as well that the church saw dimly (the complete OT with here and there prophecy and here and there epistles and gospels and such), but will be completed and perfect in time in which the Apostolic gifts will no longer be needed. I haven't hashed all this out, but as a rule I do not teach my own interpretations of scripture unless others who are or were lawfully ordained and mighty in the scriptures have come to similar conclusions (in other words, I do not believe that I will come up with a new interpretation of any passage like the church has been waiting 2000 years for some 26 year old layman to tell us all how this passage is actually supposed to be read). So I have not heard similar until I read Grudem's defense for noncessationism. He quoted Robert Reymond as coming to the same the interpretation that I came to.
Jesus treated scriptures as a whole, God breathed revelation, and so did the Apostles. The Apostles certainly knew they were writing scripture. James speaks of the word of God as a mirror seeing ourselves, and here Paul is speaking of a mirror as well that the church saw dimly (the complete OT with here and there prophecy and here and there epistles and gospels and such), but will be completed and perfect in time in which the Apostolic gifts will no longer be needed. I haven't hashed all this out, but as a rule I do not teach my own interpretations of scripture unless others who are or were lawfully ordained and mighty in the scriptures have come to similar conclusions (in other words, I do not believe that I will come up with a new interpretation of any passage like the church has been waiting 2000 years for some 26 year old layman to tell us all how this passage is actually supposed to be read). So I have not heard similar until I read Grudem's defense for noncessationism. He quoted Robert Reymond as coming to the same the interpretation that I came to.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Chris,
Interesting. I have always understood the "perfect" as full maturity or consummation of the eschaton.
Even though the canon of scripture is complete. It still seems like a dim mirror to me. (Although is is much more reflective and clear than under the old covenant)
[Edited on 11-7-2005 by Saiph]
Interesting. I have always understood the "perfect" as full maturity or consummation of the eschaton.
Even though the canon of scripture is complete. It still seems like a dim mirror to me. (Although is is much more reflective and clear than under the old covenant)
[Edited on 11-7-2005 by Saiph]
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
I interpret Paul speaking about the complete and final (perfect) word of God that will come after the Apostolic era.
Jesus treated scriptures as a whole, God breathed revelation, and so did the Apostles. The Apostles certainly knew they were writing scripture. James speaks of the word of God as a mirror seeing ourselves, and here Paul is speaking of a mirror as well that the church saw dimly (the complete OT with here and there prophecy and here and there epistles and gospels and such), but will be completed and perfect in time in which the Apostolic gifts will no longer be needed. I haven't hashed all this out, but as a rule I do not teach my own interpretations of scripture unless others who are or were lawfully ordained and mighty in the scriptures have come to similar conclusions (in other words, I do not believe that I will come up with a new interpretation of any passage like the church has been waiting 2000 years for some 26 year old layman to tell us all how this passage is actually supposed to be read). So I have not heard similar until I read Grudem's defense for noncessationism. He quoted Robert Reymond as coming to the same the interpretation that I came to.
I also agree with Reymond and Gentry on this. As well as Warfield, Edwards and Hodge. :bigsmile:
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by Roldan
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
I interpret Paul speaking about the complete and final (perfect) word of God that will come after the Apostolic era.
Jesus treated scriptures as a whole, God breathed revelation, and so did the Apostles. The Apostles certainly knew they were writing scripture. James speaks of the word of God as a mirror seeing ourselves, and here Paul is speaking of a mirror as well that the church saw dimly (the complete OT with here and there prophecy and here and there epistles and gospels and such), but will be completed and perfect in time in which the Apostolic gifts will no longer be needed. I haven't hashed all this out, but as a rule I do not teach my own interpretations of scripture unless others who are or were lawfully ordained and mighty in the scriptures have come to similar conclusions (in other words, I do not believe that I will come up with a new interpretation of any passage like the church has been waiting 2000 years for some 26 year old layman to tell us all how this passage is actually supposed to be read). So I have not heard similar until I read Grudem's defense for noncessationism. He quoted Robert Reymond as coming to the same the interpretation that I came to.
I also agree with Reymond and Gentry on this. As well as Warfield, Edwards and Hodge. :bigsmile:
Really? Warfield, Edwards and Hodge? Wow, I didn't realize. Reymond was the first and only I came across that shared my view. So before Reymond, I refrained from mentioning it.
Neat-o
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Originally posted by Roldan
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
I interpret Paul speaking about the complete and final (perfect) word of God that will come after the Apostolic era.
Jesus treated scriptures as a whole, God breathed revelation, and so did the Apostles. The Apostles certainly knew they were writing scripture. James speaks of the word of God as a mirror seeing ourselves, and here Paul is speaking of a mirror as well that the church saw dimly (the complete OT with here and there prophecy and here and there epistles and gospels and such), but will be completed and perfect in time in which the Apostolic gifts will no longer be needed. I haven't hashed all this out, but as a rule I do not teach my own interpretations of scripture unless others who are or were lawfully ordained and mighty in the scriptures have come to similar conclusions (in other words, I do not believe that I will come up with a new interpretation of any passage like the church has been waiting 2000 years for some 26 year old layman to tell us all how this passage is actually supposed to be read). So I have not heard similar until I read Grudem's defense for noncessationism. He quoted Robert Reymond as coming to the same the interpretation that I came to.
I also agree with Reymond and Gentry on this. As well as Warfield, Edwards and Hodge. :bigsmile:
Really? Warfield, Edwards and Hodge? Wow, I didn't realize. Reymond was the first and only I came across that shared my view. So before Reymond, I refrained from mentioning it.
Neat-o
Theres more
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
I interpret Paul speaking about the complete and final (perfect) word of God that will come after the Apostolic era.
Jesus treated scriptures as a whole, God breathed revelation, and so did the Apostles. The Apostles certainly knew they were writing scripture. James speaks of the word of God as a mirror seeing ourselves, and here Paul is speaking of a mirror as well that the church saw dimly (the complete OT with here and there prophecy and here and there epistles and gospels and such), but will be completed and perfect in time in which the Apostolic gifts will no longer be needed. I haven't hashed all this out, but as a rule I do not teach my own interpretations of scripture unless others who are or were lawfully ordained and mighty in the scriptures have come to similar conclusions (in other words, I do not believe that I will come up with a new interpretation of any passage like the church has been waiting 2000 years for some 26 year old layman to tell us all how this passage is actually supposed to be read). So I have not heard similar until I read Grudem's defense for noncessationism. He quoted Robert Reymond as coming to the same the interpretation that I came to.
By the way I am 42. Are you telling me that you believe that the canon of Scripture is the perfect thing that will allow us to know ourselves fully as we are known. And that they will bring us completely face to face with God. I don't believe that. I do believe the scriptures are perfect but I don't believe we can know ourselves completely as we are known because our hearts are unsearchable and only God can search them out. I also believe when it speaks about being face to face that that is what it means. We will be complete when we literally see Him face to face. Then we will know as we are known. We can not do that until then. Our indwelling sin nature will not allow it.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Fulness of knowledge in that context seems to be existential and covenantal. Not exhaustive understanding of all propositional truth.
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
2Co 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
My main point was that only God is omniscient. Therefore "full" does not imply that. We are contingent, therefore can never have the capacity for omniscience.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
I interpret Paul speaking about the complete and final (perfect) word of God that will come after the Apostolic era.
Jesus treated scriptures as a whole, God breathed revelation, and so did the Apostles. The Apostles certainly knew they were writing scripture. James speaks of the word of God as a mirror seeing ourselves, and here Paul is speaking of a mirror as well that the church saw dimly (the complete OT with here and there prophecy and here and there epistles and gospels and such), but will be completed and perfect in time in which the Apostolic gifts will no longer be needed. I haven't hashed all this out, but as a rule I do not teach my own interpretations of scripture unless others who are or were lawfully ordained and mighty in the scriptures have come to similar conclusions (in other words, I do not believe that I will come up with a new interpretation of any passage like the church has been waiting 2000 years for some 26 year old layman to tell us all how this passage is actually supposed to be read). So I have not heard similar until I read Grudem's defense for noncessationism. He quoted Robert Reymond as coming to the same the interpretation that I came to.
By the way I am 42. Are you telling me that you believe that the canon of Scripture is the perfect thing that will allow us to know ourselves fully as we are known. And that they will bring us completely face to face with God. I don't believe that. I do believe the scriptures are perfect but I don't believe we can know ourselves completely as we are known because our hearts are unsearchable and only God can search them out. I also believe when it speaks about being face to face that that is what it means. We will be complete when we literally see Him face to face. Then we will know as we are known. We can not do that until then. Our indwelling sin nature will not allow it.
What does your age have to do with my post?
My point was that I am young and not lawfully ordained and will not "teach" any interpretation that I alone come up with unless it is supported by those who are much more qualified than I.
Personally, I would not use this interpretation of the passage to defend cessationism. It appears to me it is one of those "up for grabs" passages. We can speculate and believe what we want it to say, but in the end we can not know for sure.
- Status
