What is knowing?

[childeye]

I'm not going to address the entire post as I don't want to drag out the points being made. One thing I will say, that is that God does NOT save no matter what. If you reject Christ, your means of salvation are gone. Aside from that, there are no sins that can keep you from the grace of God.

I thought I mentioned that it makes sense that there are some things we're not supposed to know. Peter denied Christ three times. However I don't think he rejected Christ in his heart.

And, just so it's said, I totally reject the idea that after a person is "saved" they can deny Christ and live however they want. The Bible doesn't teach this.

Respectfully, if a person were in the process of being renewed, it seems to me that what his wants are would change also.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Respectfully, if a person were in the process of being renewed, it seems to me that what his wants are would change also.

This is my position also.

Your reply to me didn't format correctly. You replied within the quotes of my post.

 

[Runner]

Well, it's true for me, that Love/empathy is a verifiable and knowable reality. It can also logically be counted as of the highest value in mankind since it defines the moral good. It has proven to be a moral power worth living for and dying for, therefore transcending our temporal existence in that capacity.

Do you believe, that to treat others as you would want to be treated is a metaphysical Truth? Are moral and immoral impulses a reality?

I agree that none of us are capable of believing anything contrary to our own experiences....However, observations, reflections, and intuition are too nuanced to be applied so definitively. My experience is that people don't seem to share the same definition that God is Love. Whether Love is Eternal or not cannot be proven or disproven. What can be proven is that it's more right to believe that it is, than it isn't.

But an atheist could agree with essentially all of that without attributing any of it to God, or a Muslim or Hindu could say essentially the same thing without attributing any of it to the God of Christianity. An atheist could say that love and the moral impulses are products of evolution - that they have been hard-wired into us over time because they further the purposes of evolution. I've followed the arguments of Dr. Frank Turek who insists that atheists "steal from God" when they talk of morality because morality makes sense only if you have an external standard such as God. Otherwise, he says, what you call morality is just a matter of personal opinion. This strikes me as facile reasoning because an atheist could say that evolution has determined the standard and hard-wired it into us. That which furthers the evolutionary purposes is hard-wired into us as "good," while that which does not is hard-wired into us as "evil." Feelings of love further the evolutionary purposes, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you furthers the evolutionary purposes.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you - of course I believe that God is love and is the source of morality. There are serious epistemological problems with what an atheist might say (as I have described it is the preceding paragraph). It's not clear that concepts such as love, good and evil even make sense in the context of evolutionary naturalism. I'm just saying that it's not obvious to me that a Christian can claim to "know" these things in any way that is significantly different from the way an atheist, Muslim or Hindu might claim to know them (or his version of them). That's why I think that, in dealing with other Christians as well as non-Christians, we have to have at least a little bit of humility about what we insist we "know."

 

[Papa Zoom]

But an atheist could agree with essentially all of that without attributing any of it to God, or a Muslim or Hindu could say essentially the same thing without attributing any of it to the God of Christianity. An atheist could say that love and the moral impulses are products of evolution - that they have been hard-wired into us over time because they further the purposes of evolution. I've followed the arguments of Dr. Frank Turek who insists that atheists "steal from God" when they talk of morality because morality makes sense only if you have an external standard such as God. Otherwise, he says, what you call morality is just a matter of personal opinion. This strikes me as facile reasoning because an atheist could say that evolution has determined the standard and hard-wired it into us. That which furthers the evolutionary purposes is hard-wired into us as "good," while that which does not is hard-wired into us as "evil." Feelings of love further the evolutionary purposes, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you furthers the evolutionary purposes.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you - of course I believe that God is love and is the source of morality. There are serious epistemological problems with what an atheist might say (as I have described it is the preceding paragraph). It's not clear that concepts such as love, good and evil even make sense in the context of evolutionary naturalism. I'm just saying that it's not obvious to me that a Christian can claim to "know" these things in any way that is significantly different from the way an atheist, Muslim or Hindu might claim to know them (or his version of them). That's why I think that, in dealing with other Christians as well as non-Christians, we have to have at least a little bit of humility about what we insist we "know."

I have listened to Turek for years. I love his podcasts. I have his book but haven't tackled it yet.

 

[childeye]

But an atheist could agree with essentially all of that without attributing any of it to God, or a Muslim or Hindu could say essentially the same thing without attributing any of it to the God of Christianity. An atheist could say that love and the moral impulses are products of evolution - that they have been hard-wired into us over time because they further the purposes of evolution. I've followed the arguments of Dr. Frank Turek who insists that atheists "steal from God" when they talk of morality because morality makes sense only if you have an external standard such as God. Otherwise, he says, what you call morality is just a matter of personal opinion. This strikes me as facile reasoning because an atheist could say that evolution has determined the standard and hard-wired it into us. That which furthers the evolutionary purposes is hard-wired into us as "good," while that which does not is hard-wired into us as "evil." Feelings of love further the evolutionary purposes, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you furthers the evolutionary purposes.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you - of course I believe that God is love and is the source of morality. There are serious epistemological problems with what an atheist might say (as I have described it is the preceding paragraph). It's not clear that concepts such as love, good and evil even make sense in the context of evolutionary naturalism. I'm just saying that it's not obvious to me that a Christian can claim to "know" these things in any way that is significantly different from the way an atheist, Muslim or Hindu might claim to know them (or his version of them). That's why I think that, in dealing with other Christians as well as non-Christians, we have to have at least a little bit of humility about what we insist we "know."

I study semantics, sophistry, and even some forms of hypnotism ( planting suggestions into what is called the subconscious while bypassing what is called the conscious, or propaganda).

In all honesty, I can't both defend the Truth of what I believe and have my reservations. So long as what I am saying is not meant to berate anyone, my humility while honestly proclaiming what I know, should not be in conflict. Besides, the Truth of God lifts all men up. It's therefore advantageously possible to bring such debates to a point where those who are opposed, are against themselves by their own admission.

Yes an atheist can agree with me and not attribute it to God. But, atheists have applied their own arbitrary definition to the term God, so as to mean religion, myth, or superstition. A quick reference of the bible can show that the bible claimed God to be Love/empathy a long time ago. If they say Love is a chemical, then I point out that science has proven empathy to be a powerful emotion/spirit, that actually causes chemical changes in the brain by both it's presence and it's absence.

We could go on and on about how to debate with atheists. I can't say I've ever converted one, but I can say that I've made them doubt their own convictions.

 

[Runner]

I study semantics, sophistry, and even some forms of hypnotism ( planting suggestions into what is called the subconscious while bypassing what is called the conscious, or propaganda).

In all honesty, I can't both defend the Truth of what I believe and have my reservations. So long as what I am saying is not meant to berate anyone, my humility while honestly proclaiming what I know, should not be in conflict. Besides, the Truth of God lifts all men up. It's therefore advantageously possible to bring such debates to a point where those who are opposed, are against themselves by their own admission.

Yes an atheist can agree with me and not attribute it to God. But, atheists have applied their own arbitrary definition to the term God, so as to mean religion, myth, or superstition. A quick reference of the bible can show that the bible claimed God to be Love/empathy a long time ago. If they say Love is a chemical, then I point out that science has proven empathy to be a powerful emotion/spirit, that actually causes chemical changes in the brain by both it's presence and it's absence.

We could go on and on about how to debate with atheists. I can't say I've ever converted one, but I can say that I've made them doubt their own convictions.

I think it depends to some extent upon the context. If I were speaking to a congregation from the pulpit or out witnessing door-to-door, I obviously wouldn't preface the gospel message with "Now I'm not 100% sure about this, but ...."

If I were engaged in a serious philosophical/metaphysical discussion with an atheist or other non-Christian, however, I might well set the stage by saying "Let's agree up front that we both have a strong depth of conviction but that, since we're talking about metaphysical issues, neither of us absolutely knows the truth of what he is saying or can demonstrate it to the other in the same way me might settle the issue of whether my Ford is sitting in my garage."

Strictly within myself, I'm not troubled by accepting some small possibility that everything I believe about God and Christianity may be wrong. As the years roll by and my conviction deepens, both for reasons I can't explain and for what seems to me to be the working of God in my life, this possibility diminishes - but it never becomes 0%.

In fact, if I were claiming to have 100% confidence I'd have some concerns about my own mental processes. Belief that acknowledges doubt is honest belief. When the father of the possessed boy says "I do believe; help my unbelief" (Mark 9:24, NASB), Jesus doesn't respond "No, get back to me after you've eliminated all doubt."

In Pascal's Wager, he wasn't simply saying an unbeliever should "place a bet" on God because she has everything to gain if she wins and little to lose if she loses. Part of what Pascal was saying was that, if you have any inkling God might exist - if you're not completely opposed to the notion - you should try living as though He did and see if the truth doesn't gradually blossom in your life.

In discussions with atheists and non-believers, likewise, it's always tempting to say "You won't know what I know, the truth of what I know won't become apparent to you, unless and until you turn to Christ, invite the Holy Spirit into your life, and give Him a chance to work." But of course, the Catch-22 is that turning to Christ can't be a completely insincere experiment, something you try just to "see if it works."

Hence, in debating with atheists we can't condescendingly assert that we know while they merely think they know. We can only present the gospel message and trust in the Holy Spirit to call those who have ears to hear.

 

[childeye]

I think it depends to some extent upon the context. If I were speaking to a congregation from the pulpit or out witnessing door-to-door, I obviously wouldn't preface the gospel message with "Now I'm not 100% sure about this, but ...."

Respectfully, I'm having trouble with the premise in some of the things you are saying. For example, I would not consider speaking to a congregation as being in the same context of witnessing door to door. I also would not begin a presentation of the Gospel by expressing some doubts. However in a congregation of supposed believers, I would hope that honesty would compel me to say if and when I am not sure about some particular intricacies that may arise during deeper elaboration.

If I were engaged in a serious philosophical/metaphysical discussion with an atheist or other non-Christian, however, I might well set the stage by saying "Let's agree up front that we both have a strong depth of conviction but that, since we're talking about metaphysical issues, neither of us absolutely knows the truth of what he is saying or can demonstrate it to the other in the same way me might settle the issue of whether my Ford is sitting in my garage."

Again, some premise you construct this upon becomes questionable in my hearing. I gather that you would like to establish equal footing to begin with, and I suppose that might prove useful to ease any anxiety stemming from the prospect of having to disagree.

My problem is that I don't actually believe that I don't absolutely know the Truth of what I'm saying, and therefore I also don't believe that I can't demonstrate it the same way as whether my Ford is sitting in my driveway.

I feel it goes unappreciated when I say that the definition of the term God is going to be the issue. Any serious discussion must begin there. If I accept their term as equally valid, then all terms will change in meaning from the God that I know, making it impossible to articulate the Truth. Faith will not be faith, but rather degrees of faith and unfaith, conviction will not be conviction but rather delusion or illusion, Light won't be Light and darkness will not be darkness, but rather shades of gray.

Strictly within myself, I'm not troubled by accepting some small possibility that everything I believe about God and Christianity may be wrong. As the years roll by and my conviction deepens, both for reasons I can't explain and for what seems to me to be the working of God in my life, this possibility diminishes - but it never becomes 0%.

I respect your candor. I again can't help feeling that there must be a premise in your approach which I don't have. I would not say or think any of this. To me, how you are defining faith comes into question. Faith must be applied to that which is hoped for, or it's not faith. It can't be applied to what is dreaded and yet be called faith. Why? Because we are ultimately believing that God is the power of what is good in us. This must be a constant in any proper definition of God. Hence scripture says, God is Light and without darkness.

In fact, if I were claiming to have 100% confidence I'd have some concerns about my own mental processes. Belief that acknowledges doubt is honest belief. When the father of the possessed boy says "I do believe; help my unbelief" (Mark 9:24, NASB), Jesus doesn't respond "No, get back to me after you've eliminated all doubt."

Your confidence and mine, is definitely under pressure in this world, but it doesn't change the criteria of what constitutes that which we strive to have confidence in. I therefore accept that there is both a subjective and objective view of faith.

I'd like to comment on this example you provided from scripture. The terms "believe" and help my "unbelief" are both predicated on the same essential acknowledgment that the object of faith and unfaith, must be hoped in for faith and unfaith to remain coherent.

In Pascal's Wager, he wasn't simply saying an unbeliever should "place a bet" on God because she has everything to gain if she wins and little to lose if she loses. Part of what Pascal was saying was that, if you have any inkling God might exist - if you're not completely opposed to the notion - you should try living as though He did and see if the truth doesn't gradually blossom in your life.

Pascal's Wager does not account for vanity. What prevents a person from seeing God or Christ as a placebo?

In discussions with atheists and non-believers, likewise, it's always tempting to say "You won't know what I know, the truth of what I know won't become apparent to you, unless and until you turn to Christ, invite the Holy Spirit into your life, and give Him a chance to work." But of course, the Catch-22 is that turning to Christ can't be a completely insincere experiment, something you try just to "see if it works."

Hence, in debating with atheists we can't condescendingly assert that we know while they merely think they know. We can only present the gospel message and trust in the Holy Spirit to call those who have ears to hear.

I totally agree with you here. In fact this is why God and His Christ is not a placebo, but a real and Living Spirit. Which I feel shows that we are dealing with some contradictions that can occur in binary applications of terminology.

So I'm going to say this. It's futile to subjectively split hairs over where the Light ends and the darkness begins, even because it is no different to the average mind, than where the Light begins and the darkness ends. What goes unnoticed is that in the proper application of binary terms, the Light begins at it's source and not where the darkness ends. Still, only by examining both objectively and subjectively, can we be sure that there is a such thing as Light, and thereby also determine from which direction the Light is shining.

 

[Runner]

Respectfully, I'm having trouble with the premise in some of the things you are saying. For example, I would not consider speaking to a congregation as being in the same context of witnessing door to door. While I definitely wouldn't begin the Gospel by expressing some doubts. However in a congregation of supposed believers, honesty might compel me to say I am not sure about some particular intricacies that may arise in deeper elaboration.
Again, the premise you construct this upon is somewhat suspect. I gather that you would like to establish equal footing to begin with, and I suppose that might be useful to ease any anxiety stemming from vanity.

I think we clearly aren't communicating, because I likewise am not following much of what you're saying. I'm not saying this in a critical way. It just seems to me we're talking about apples and oranges.

I'm talking about the bottom-line questions: Does God exist? If God exists, is He the God of Christianity?

I cannot imagine addressing any congregation and beginning "Putting aside the fact we may all harbor a modicum of doubt as to whether God exists at all, let's turn to the Gospel of John." It sounds to me as though what you must be talking about are specific verses and doctrines where there are legitimate differences of opinion among Christian theologians, scholars, leaders and believers.

No, I'm not merely talking about "easing any anxiety stemming from vanity." I'm talking about a Christian honestly admitting he cannot actually know, in any sense that is going to be intelligible or meaningful to an atheist, that God exists or Christianity is true. I'm talking about an atheist honestly admitting he cannot know, in any sense that is going to be intelligible or meaningful to a Christian, that God doesn't exist or Christianity isn't true.

The Christian and the atheist have each become convinced a particular paradigm is true. Each paradigm carries with it a host of "truths" that must be accepted as axiomatic or the paradigm collapses. "There is no God" is axiomatic for an atheist but not for a Christian. Once the Christian and the atheist admit this reality, they can then have an intelligent and respectful discussion as to why each believes the way he does - and perhaps one can convince the other that his paradigm is at least worthy of consideration. The discussion will be easier with a Hindu or Muslim, of course, because both of their paradigms are at least theistic.

But I don't actually believe that I don't absolutely know the Truth of what I'm saying, and therefore also don't believe that I can't demonstrate it the same way as whether my Ford is sitting in my driveway. I feel it goes unappreciated when I say that the definition of the term God is going to be the issue. Any serious discussion must begin there. If I accept their term as equally valid, then all terms will change in meaning from the God that I know. Faith will not be faith, but rather degrees of faith and unfaith, conviction will not be conviction but rather delusion or illusion, Light won't be Light and darkness will not be darkness, but rather shades of gray.

I would simply disagree with the first sentence. The atheist and I agree Fords exist. To demonstrate whether mine is in my garage, I simply open the door and say "There's my Ford and here's my title." For someone holding the naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic paradigm, however, it is an axiom that there is no God of any sort - not just no God of Christianity, but no God of any sort. The atheist doesn't care how you define God unless you're willing to define Him as "Non-existent." So in what way analogous to demonstrating your Ford is in your garage would you demonstrate the reality of God to an atheist? You can't. You can only convince him your Christian paradigm isn't the silliness he always assumed it was and hope he'll give it serious consideration and discover for himself, with the help of the Holy Spirit, what you've discovered.

Respectfully, I feel that there must be a premise that is suspect, because of what you are saying. I would not say or think any of this. To me, how you are defining faith comes into question. Faith must be applied to that which is hoped for, or it's not faith. It can't be applied to what is dreaded and yet be called faith. Why? Because we are ultimately believing that God is the definer of what is good and evil. Hence God is Light and without darkness.

Where in my post do you find a definition of faith? Where in my post do you see any suggestion of dread on my part?

In the sense in which you're talking of faith, I'd say what I've always said: My faith is my conviction Christianity is true and my decision to live as though it were true, while acknowledging some slight possibility it might not be. I wouldn't live as though Christianity were true unless I had reached a strong conviction it was. To live as though it were true while having no such conviction would be schizophrenic. My conviction Christianity is true brings me peace and joy. The slight possibility it might not be true causes me no dread. If it's not true, in fact, I'd like to know this at the earliest possible date.

Your confidence and mine, is tested in this world, but it doesn't change the criteria of what constitutes that which we strive to have confidence in. I'd like to comment on this example from scripture. The terms "believe" and help my "unbelief" are both predicated on the same essential acknowledgment that the object faith or unfaith must be hoped in for faith to remain coherent.

"Confidence" is not, of course, absolute knowledge. When I'm vacationing in Hawaii, I can be confident my Ford is still sitting in my locked garage in Arizona. But I won't have absolute knowledge until I return home and look. I don't believe I'll have this level of certainty about Christianity this side of the Second Coming.

I have a high level of confidence Christianity is true. Because I've pondered and lived my beliefs over many years, there isn't much that occurs that really tests them anymore. The definitive, no-question-about-it discovery of Jesus' skeleton? Yes, that would test them in a big way.

When the father of the possessed child says "I believe, help my unbelief," he is honestly saying (I believe) that his belief is genuine but not free from all doubt. Jesus says if we had the faith of a mustard seed we could order mountains to jump into the sea - but no one yet has been able to do this. Why? Why can't you do this, or at least a minor-league version of it, if you have the level of certainty you are describing? If we're honest, it's because we all harbor some modicum of doubt, small as it might be; in our day-to-day lives, we all hedge our bets to some extent.

I think the bottom line is precisely what was suggested in Papa Zoom's first post: "I know" really means "I've become very, very convinced." But sincere atheists, Muslims and Hindus have likewise become very, very convinced. There is no way around this except to explain why you have become very convinced and hope they too will become very convinced of what you are very convinced about rather than of what they are currently very convinced about. But none of us really "knows," and I for one have no difficulty admitting this fact.

I think I've now beaten to death whatever I can contribute to the "knowing" discussion and should take my apples to a different thread.

 

[childeye]

I think we clearly aren't communicating, because I likewise am not following much of what you're saying. I'm not saying this in a critical way. It just seems to me we're talking about apples and oranges.

I'm talking about the bottom-line questions: Does God exist? If God exists, is He the God of Christianity?

And all I'm saying is that we must first define the term God before we can attempt to answer those questions.

It sounds to me as though what you must be talking about are specific verses and doctrines where there are legitimate differences of opinion among Christian theologians, scholars, leaders and believers.

No, I'm just saying that before any doctrine can be established concerning God, one must first define God.

No, I'm not merely talking about "easing any anxiety stemming from vanity." I'm talking about a Christian honestly admitting he cannot actually know, in any sense that is going to be intelligible or meaningful to an atheist, that God exists or Christianity is true.

But what about Love/empathy? Even an honest atheist knows that empathy exists. That's a starting point for agreement.

The Christian and the atheist have each become convinced a particular paradigm is true. Each paradigm carries with it a host of "truths" that must be accepted as axiomatic or the paradigm collapses. "There is no God" is axiomatic for an atheist but not for a Christian. Once the Christian and the atheist admit this reality, they can then have an intelligent and respectful discussion as to why each believes the way he does - and perhaps one can convince the other that his paradigm is at least worthy of consideration. The discussion will be easier with a Hindu or Muslim, of course, because both of their paradigms are at least theistic.

How exactly is it axiomatic that God cannot exist, without any definition for the term God being applied as an axiom? It seems impossible for atheists to exist without any definition of God existing first, so as to not believe in. That's like someone living before the combustion engine was even invented, suddenly saying I don't believe in the existence of a Ford.

I would simply disagree with the first sentence. The atheist and I agree Fords exist. To demonstrate whether mine is in my garage, I simply open the door and say "There's my Ford and here's my title." For someone holding the naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic paradigm, however, it is an axiom that there is no God of any sort - not just no God of Christianity, but no God of any sort. The atheist doesn't care how you define God unless you're willing to define Him as "Non-existent." So in what way analogous to demonstrating your Ford is in your garage would you demonstrate the reality of God to an atheist? You can't. You can only convince him your Christian paradigm isn't the silliness he always assumed it was and hope he'll give it serious consideration and discover for himself, with the help of the Holy Spirit, what you've discovered.

The atheist and yourself probably agree on the definition of what a Ford is. Likewise the term God must be addressed. I would start by saying that God is Love/empathy.

Where in my post do you find a definition of faith? Where in my post do you see any suggestion of dread on my part?

You're right, you have not given a definition of faith. It's my definition of faith (and scriptures) which does not allow dread as a possibility. It's just that I believe that any atheist definition of God must be something "not hoped in and even hoped against", so as to be committed to not believing in God. In essence this is their faith. So I have a problem with this statement here: Let's agree up front that we both have a strong depth of conviction but that, since we're talking about metaphysical issues, neither of us absolutely knows the truth of what he is saying or can demonstrate it to the other in the same way me might settle the issue of whether my Ford is sitting in my garage."

Since to me, an atheist dreads God, in my view this statement indirectly implies you have accepted in some degree that God cannot be proven to be good with absolute certainty. An atheist will usually begin by asserting that they are indifferent to God and therefore need not be proven to, nor prove anything about God being good or bad. That's a dodge. Because with a little nudging they will reveal that their conviction is predicated on their definition of God as being something to dread. Hence, the term God is considered by the atheist to simply be a false premise on which to brainwash and build blind religious adherence to false institutions who seek to hold power over gullible people.

In the sense in which you're talking of faith, I'd say what I've always said: My faith is my conviction Christianity is true and my decision to live as though it were true, while acknowledging some slight possibility it might not be. I wouldn't live as though Christianity were true unless I had reached a strong conviction it was. To live as though it were true while having no such conviction would be schizophrenic. My conviction Christianity is true brings me peace and joy. The slight possibility it might not be true causes me no dread. If it's not true, in fact, I'd like to know this at the earliest possible date.

I have no problems about you saying you have any doubts about whether Christianity is true. I just don't think we're looking at it the same. I don't believe you have any doubt that Love/empathy is a good thing for example.

I think the bottom line is precisely what was suggested in Papa Zoom's first post: "I know" really means "I've become very, very convinced." But sincere atheists, Muslims and Hindus have likewise become very, very convinced. There is no way around this except to explain why you have become very convinced and hope they too will become very convinced of what you are very convinced about rather than of what they are currently very convinced about. But none of us really "knows," and I for one have no difficulty admitting this fact.

Sure, Papa Zoom's explanation of knowing as "being strongly convinced of the truth of something" is acceptable so long as that truth of something is true. Is being strongly convinced that a lie is true the same as knowing? If so, then being deceived is knowing. My definition of knowing is gaining knowledge. That necessarily means that the conviction of an atheist is not comparable to the conviction of a Christian. One is saying Love is good, and the other is saying God is brainwashing. Think about it, according to an atheist, I got brainwashed into believing that I should sacrifice my wants and needs for the sake of those who have greater wants and needs than I do.

Well I can't help knowing that Love/empathy exists, and about that I have no doubt. It's no different than saying, "I know that I don't like seeing people suffer". Seeing the Love displayed on the cross according to the Gospel, may seem harder to believe in, but I still know that it's Love. I never saw Jesus live nor die and forgive his tormentors, nor witness his rise from the dead. But I know that it's more right to believe that such a Love exists eternal, than right to believe that it cannot exist at all, simply because I know that Love is good.

 

[Politico]

So when we speak of knowing, aren't we simply saying that we are convinced of the truth of a proposition but not saying that we know with the same certainty as God knows?

Did you mean the same certainly or in the same way?

 

[Papa Zoom]

Did you mean the same certainly or in the same way?

I'm not sure I see a difference. Put another way, we can't know something as God knows it. God has full knowledge and understanding, we don't. He's all-knowing. We know only in part. We can be fully convinced of something and believe it without doubt and still be wrong. That seems a reasonable thing to say.

I don't entertain the idea that I might be wrong about who Jesus is because I am fully convinced He's the Messiah, He's God in the flesh. He died and was resurrected. I've no doubts here. But this is foundational to Christianity. Some ideas in theology aren't essential to the faith. Some things have been debated for hundreds of years. We still debate them today! With no resolution in sight. There's room for humility and an admittance that we just don't "know" with full certainty. Because we can't.

The nature of Hell is one such thing. There are at least 4 views of Hell of which I am aware. They can't all be right. You might be convinced on one of them - that it's the truth - but how can you know fully?

We endlessly discuss OSAS as if both sides are fully knowledgeable and right. Some forums on the NET get nasty about it calling each other heretics and other names. They seem to have forgotten a few Bible passages along the way.

This is the thinking of mine behind the question of knowing. Some questions ought to be approached with more humility and care since in reality, we could be wrong in our thinking. Clearly, someone is. But who? Well, the other side of course!

This goes for any of those issues that tend to divide the Body. We are not called to be divided but to be united. I see little of that on most topics here.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I'm not sure I see a difference. Put another way, we can't know something as God knows it. God has full knowledge and understanding, we don't. He's all-knowing. We know only in part. We can be fully convinced of something and believe it without doubt and still be wrong. That seems a reasonable thing to say.

I don't entertain the idea that I might be wrong about who Jesus is because I am fully convinced He's the Messiah, He's God in the flesh. He died and was resurrected. I've no doubts here. But this is foundational to Christianity. Some ideas in theology aren't essential to the faith. Some things have been debated for hundreds of years. We still debate them today! With no resolution in sight. There's room for humility and an admittance that we just don't "know" with full certainty. Because we can't.

The nature of Hell is one such thing. There are at least 4 views of Hell of which I am aware. They can't all be right. You might be convinced on one of them - that it's the truth - but how can you know fully?

We endlessly discuss OSAS as if both sides are fully knowledgeable and right. Some forums on the NET get nasty about it calling each other heretics and other names. They seem to have forgotten a few Bible passages along the way.

This is the thinking of mine behind the question of knowing. Some questions ought to be approached with more humility and care since in reality, we could be wrong in our thinking. Clearly, someone is. But who? Well, the other side of course!

This goes for any of those issues that tend to divide the Body. We are not called to be divided but to be united. I see little of that on most topics here.

A well considered response, and you´re right but some people go all Bananas when I terminate those conversations with saying that I'll wave to them as we both ascend to Heaven, Pre, mid, or post Tribulation. That should upset nobody but it does.

 

[Papa Zoom]

A well considered response, and you´re right but some people go all Bananas when I terminate those conversations with saying that I'll wave to them as we both ascend to Heaven, Pre, mid, or post Tribulation. That should upset nobody but it does.

excellent example, thanks. That's what I'm referring to. I like to say I'm a Panist. It will all pan out in the end.

 

[for_his_glory]

We should never believe what another says unless they give scriptural support of what they believe so we can go study those scriptures for our self and asking the Holy Spirit show us the truth. One scripture does not make a truth, but comparing scripture with scripture, OT with NT we will come to all truth and knowledge that God wants us to know. Apart from the Holy Spirit man can teach us nothing.

2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.