"Faith" vs "Knowledge" --- FROM THE BIBLE
bwme...@toast.net
Acts 17:22-23
*************************************************
[in his whole address, to the pagans of Athens and their visitors,
Paul nowhere quotes a Scripture, although he references FACTS from
Scripture, such as the one that all the people of the world have
descended from one original man whom God created, which Epicureans
and Stoics likely would not "agree with," as their counterparts,
Evolutionists of today, do not]
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of
Athens, I perceive (Gr. theorew -- intently observe) that in all
respects you are extremely reverent;
23 "for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your
worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN
GOD. Therefore, the One whom you WORSHIP (sebasmata --- see Endnote
2) without KNOWING (Gr. a-gno-ou-ntes--- see Endnote 1) [a CLEAR
contrast between "FAITH" and "KNOWLEDGE"], Him I proclaim to you:
*************************************************
Thus, it is apparent that the Athenians Paul was specifically
addressing here had FAITH, but not KNOWLEDGE (not DEFINING either
term, as yet). And Paul warns (vss. 30-32) that:
(1) This situation used to be "overlooked" by God, in the OT times
(when no one --- neither Jews nor Gentiles --- had the KNOWLEDGE, of
Christ, that God demands for men to have today), up to the
Resurrection of Christ.
(2) Since the Resurrection of Christ, God DEMANDS of mankind that
KNOWLEDGE, as well as other KNOWLEDGE, which is specified elsewhere,
such as John 8:24 and 1 Cor. 15:2-4.
This may, and ought to, "raise some eyebrows," and the question,
"just what does "KNOWLEDGE," here, mean, then? Can this really mean
that every person who does not KNOW all of these things (and there
are quite a few such things [Endnote 2]: as evidently most on these
newsgroups don't) is unsaved?
According to my own recollection, I don't think I KNEW that the Lord
Jesus Christ was fully GOD when I was first saved --- I did not
really HEAR that fact until somewhat later. But I did not so much
as begin to oppose it (as many here do) when I did HEAR it; I
readily received it (cp 1 Thess. 5:21 and Acts 17:11-12), as every
saved person, I believe, will.
I believe the solution to this dilemma can only be answered by the
fact that we must distinguish between GOD's perspective, and man's
perspective. In man's perspective, although I was saved, I did not
have all the KNOWLEDGE that is listed in Scripture as a requirement
to be saved. But in God's perspective ("Who knoweth the end from
the beginning"), He sees my knowledge of that fact and accepts it
BEFORE IT HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED. In short, in God's sight (which is
all that counts), I already had that knowledge when I was saved.
This has fascinating and important implications:
(1) The WRATH of God ABIDES on every unbeliever (eg John 3:36). The
unbeliever "SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but the WRATH of God abideth on him.
" But who IS such an unbeliever? Anyone who does not (yet) believe
(KNOW the knowledge God demands for all men to know?)? That is,
according to MAN'S perspective? EVERYONE ON EARTH STARTS OUT AS SUCH
AN "unbeliever" (Ephesians 2:1-3). Yet every saved person "was
chosen in Him before the foundation of the earth." How could any
such person, who was "foreloved" (as the Calvinists insist on Romans
8:28-30) have EVER been in the state of "THE WRATH OF GOD ABIDETH ON
HIM?"
We MUST distinguish between God's perspective, and man's perspective -
-- they repeatedly lead to totally opposite conclusions, as in this
example!!
(2) It appears that those who are heirs of Salvation HAVE FAITH
BEFORE THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE TO BE SAVED. The evidence of
whether a man is saved is NOT the knowledge he has, much more than
the kind of life he is living (the false representations of James
notwithstanding). The evidence is rather does he have the FAITH God
has given, which God calls the EVIDENCE (eg Hebrews 11:1, 1 John 5:
13, etc). And this FAITH is not (yet) KNOWLEDGE --- not even the
KNOWLEDGE that God now requires for salvation.
(The derivative of the function is more important than the value of
the function, at the point in question. The derivative, faith, not
the value, knowledge, is the evidence)
This opens SO many fascinating and valuable thoughts (2 Tim. 3:16):
(3) John 5:24 gives KNOWLEDGE, which if a person has (at present!),
then that person person HAS PASSED (past tense) from death to life.
That is, he can KNOW (evidence: God's stated PROOF to him --- which
he ought to BELIEVE [FAITH in God's Word to him --- which every
saved person does believe]) that he HAS BEEN (past tense) saved! Now,
just when was it that the occurrence of his passing (past tense)
from death to life (the point of his being saved?) occurred? When
God gave him FAITH? Or when God gave him KNOWLEDGE? Or "none of the
above?" The answers, as well as the questions themselves, are very
different from God's perspective or man's perspective. In God's
perspective, he was "chosen before the foundation of the world" ---
and THAT would be "when he passed from death to life?" But from
man's perspective, he was saved when he "first believed, which would
be "when he passed from death to life."
(4) How do we get KNOWLEDGE? By BELIEVING (FAITH) what God tells us.
In Luke 16:31, God warns that those who do not HEAR (FAITH) Moses
and the Prophets will not BELIEVE (gain all important KNOWLEDGE),
and furthermore, they will come to the awful fate of being damned,
as the rich man was, in the narrative. The striking example today is
the vast, vast majority, it seems, who BELIEVE ("KNOWLEDGE") that
the universe is billions of years old. They do not BELIEVE,
therefore, the KNOWLEDGE God has told us, in Moses and the Prophets,
that He made the universe and all that is therein, in SIX DAYS, such
as we know, today. (and BTW, that is the only explanation that holds
up "scientifically.") They are HEARING (FAITH) man, and REJECTING
(FAITH) God, in their hearts. And the system of BELIEF ("KNOWLEDGE")
that is the result further leads to rejection of Adam and Eve, the
Curse, the Flood, Redemption in Christ, and ultimately the entire
Bible as anything other than mythology --- in short, to damnation
forever. "Ye are not My sheep: MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE!" _THAT_ is
FAITH; and it is what leads to KNOWLEDGE (as well as EVIDENCES
Salvation).
Along these lines, some further passages to ponder:
Romans 10:13- --->
************************************************ 13 For whoever shall
call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they
call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they
believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear
without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be
sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that
preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias said, Lord,
who has believed our report? 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God.
************************************************
vs 13 --- Is this not a "work?" Yes. Does it result in salvation? No.
Does it contradict Ephesians 2:8-9? No. Might John 4:10 throw light
on this? Yes.
vs 14 --- Or is this an explanation to vs 13? Yes. Does God need men
to save other men? Does FAITH depend on other men? No.
vs 17 --- Is this (hearing) not a "work?" No. Does Acts 17:11-12
basically imply that the Bereans were saved because of works they
did?
What does the all-important Isaiah 66:2 have to say about FAITH vs
KNOWLEDGE? Or Gentiles and Jews?
Regarding the Ninevites, the Queen of Sheba, and the OT Jews, to
follow. (Matthew 12:38-42).
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
Endnote 1 ---> There are two especially major Grk words for KNOWLEDGE
--- eidw (verb: literally, "to see" words such as "eye" come from it)
means, I think, to know instinctively --- for example, knowledge God
gives us directly --- this is also knowledge we act on instinctively.
gnosis (noun) I think refers to knowledge obtained as a time process,
with effort --- eg, "book larnin'" Putting the prefix -a- in front
of it negates it: agnosis means "without knowledge." The "agnostic"
is saying, usually very proudly, that he has no knowledge --- an
"intellectual" position today (which is, as we all eido, a plain lie:
he is actually claiming that he KNOWS God doesn't exist, at least in
the subjective sense the Christian believes). Of course the word
"ignorant" (adj) is also directly from agnostic = i + gnosis.
"If ye continue in My Word (study the Bible), ye shall KNOW (ginosko)
the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free" (from bondage to
sinning) --- John 8:32.
"Ye have not KNOWN (ginosko --- 'even begun to know') Him; but I KNOW
(oida --- 'instinctively' accurately, personally, fully) Him" ---
John 8:55. That is, YOUR knowledge can come from no other
source than Books, which you haven't even begun to delve into; MY
knowledge is instinctive in the Spirit of Him from Whom I came down"
(cf 1 Cor. 2:14)
Endnote 2 ---> eg 1 Cor. 15:2-4, John 8:24, John 4:10, etc. As a
matter of fact, it might be argued that ANY Truth from God, that you
REJECT, may be required knowledge. Most "pastors" and commentators, I
have found, REFUSE to believe that Christ rose on the Third Day, which
is listed as required knowledge in 1 Cor. 15:2-4. A real question
about that person's basic FAITH arises.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
lsen...@hotmail.com
This is a ridiculous supposition. Jesus declared, "You shall know the
Truth and
the Truth shall set you free." Ludicrous is the idea that one can
have saving
faith apart from a knowledge of the object of which you have placed
your faith
in! There doesn't exist a faith which is based upon faith.
Whenever the terms of *faith* or *belief* are employed, there is
present in the
mind a consciusness as to the basis on which that *faith* firmly rests
in
reality. Reality involves *knowing.*
Faith is basically a conviction, a forced consent, if you will. A
consent
of the will does not necessarily tend toward or rise up out of
evidence or proofs.
A consent of the will need not be the result of elevating a
supposition into
beiief. Supposition is not belief nor a conviction but rather a
conjecture.
Faith on the other had is determined by evidence, not by volition. It
is the
consent of the mid to the reality of the thing in question. Augustine
stated
that what we know rests on reason while what we believe rests on
authority.
That said, an activity of reason underlies all faith while an activity
of faith
underlies all knowledge. Because this is so, reason in the final
analysis rests
on authority which is beyond itself.
We believe in Christ because we have
authoritative knowledge of who He was and what He accomplished because
of the reality of who we are before God.
Bart Goddard
lsen...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:245A526F-4198-B9CB...@art.srcbs.org:
> This is a ridiculous supposition.
Who can tell what "this" refers to? We just have to guess.
As I've said before, it's impossible to have a reasonable
discussion with someone whose reasoner is broken. It's
clear, Loren, that you have no idea what a logical or
reasonable argument is. You make sentences that look,
from afar, like pieces of logical arguments, but
your paragraphs are nothing but restatements of you
thesis. You NEVER get around to saying anything that
supports your thesis. You don't even _try_. I'll show
you. Your thesis varies from "Faith is knowledge" to
"Faith depends on knowledge". Here is your "argument":
>Jesus declared, "You shall know the
> Truth and
> the Truth shall set you free." Ludicrous is the idea that one can
> have saving
> faith apart from a knowledge of the object of which you have placed
> your faith
> in! There doesn't exist a faith which is based upon faith.
Note carefully: All you've done here is state your thesis. The
exclamation point doesn't add to the argument. Yelling doesn't
make something true. Calling your opponent's thesis "ludicrous"
also says nothing, unless you can supply some reason it's
ludicrous. But you don't. You're "reason" is simply and
exclamation point.
As a bonus, here you decry the idea of faith based on faith,
yet you think faith is knowledge and you base fait on knowledge.
You're the one preaching "faith in faith."
We continue:
> Whenever the terms of *faith* or *belief* are employed, there is
> present in the
> mind a consciusness as to the basis on which that *faith* firmly rests
> in
> reality. Reality involves *knowing.*
This is another restatement of you're position, with no support.
It's just a lengthier restatement of your definition of faith.
My faith is based in Christ. Your faith is based on "knowledge".
It doesn't further your cause to substitute "knowing", "concsiousness",
"present in the mind" or "reality" for "knowledge" as if it
added to the argument. You just restating your thesis with
synonyms.
We continue:
> Faith is basically a conviction,
Another restatement. Here you do it so you can go on with
your begging of the question. In theory, we're arguing about
whether faith is knowledge. Here, you state that it is, and
the procede to argue FROM that point, rather than TO that
point. Note:
> a forced consent, if you will. A consent
> of the will does not necessarily tend toward or rise up out of
> evidence or proofs.
> A consent of the will need not be the result of elevating a
> supposition into
> beiief. Supposition is not belief nor a conviction but rather a
> conjecture.
You've continued to explain what you think knowledge is. What's
the good of that, when you haven't supported the notion that
"faith is knowledge"?
> Faith on the other had is determined by evidence, not by volition.
Still speaking as if the argument were settled. This sentence
makes sense ONLY if we already agree that "faith is knowledge".
Since we don't, you're just wasting electrons.
> It is the consent of the mid to the reality of the thing in
> question.
Another restatement. Will you EVER get to an argument?
> Augustine stated that what we know rests on reason while what
> we believe rests on authority.
Are you even dimly aware that your citation of Augustine
argues _against_ your point?
> That said, an activity of reason underlies all faith while an
> activity of faith
> underlies all knowledge.
Yet another restatement.
> Because this is so, reason in the final analysis rests
> on authority which is beyond itself.
How can you use "because" here? This is so backward.
But thankfully, your repetitive logical error is committed
very concisely here. First you say "faith is knowledge"
then you say "because this is so...". Yet we're arguing
whether faith is knowledge, so the order should be
<argument> THEN "because this is so, faith is knowledge."
What on earth do you think you're accomplishing by assuming
your conclusion?
> We believe in Christ because we have
> authoritative knowledge of who He was and what He accomplished because
> of the reality of who we are before God.
This still assumes "faith is knowledge." Where's your support
for that statement? Answer: You ain't got it.
It's so sad that a person puts himself in the position of
lecturer, when he has so much to learn. And you need to
learn about rhetoric. Desparately.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
lsen...@hotmail.com
On Oct 22, 3:46=A0pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> lsend...@hotmail.com wrote innews:245A526F-4198-B9CB-FBC9-30EBAC32C8B5@ar=
t.srcbs.org:
>
Bart, you like to present yourself as this great logician,
yet here you reply having drawn an unwarranted conclusion
that I am presenting the argument that *faith is knowledge.*
Everything I have written distinguishes the two. I clearly
wrote that faith is based upon a knowledge base and have
done so for years.
Classic illustration. You're at an intersection waiting for
the light to turn so that you can walk across the street. The
light turns red for the on coming traffic and the white pedestrian
light signals you to cross. There is a car headed your
way and yet you still walk out in front of it. Why? Because
your faith is placed in action based upon your knowledge of
the rules of the road, on the braking system of the car and
previous experience.
I don't care how you parse it, what I have written is clear
enough and if you were such the logician, you wouldn't
have prattled so but countered with at least something of
intelligence.
> > This is a ridiculous supposition. =A0
>
> Who can tell what "this" refers to? =A0We just have to guess.
> As I've said before, it's impossible to have a reasonable
> discussion with someone whose reasoner is broken. =A0It's
> clear, Loren, that you have no idea what a logical or
> reasonable argument is. =A0You make sentences that look,
> from afar, like pieces of logical arguments, but
> your paragraphs are nothing but restatements of you
> thesis. You NEVER get around to saying anything that
> supports your thesis. =A0You don't even _try_. =A0I'll show
> you. =A0Your thesis varies from "Faith is knowledge" to
> "Faith depends on knowledge". =A0 Here is your "argument":
>
> >Jesus declared, "You shall know the
> > Truth and
> > the Truth shall set you free." =A0Ludicrous is the idea that one can
> > have saving
> > faith apart from a knowledge of the object of which you have placed
> > your faith
> > in! =A0There doesn't exist a faith which is based upon faith.
>
> Note carefully: =A0All you've done here is state your thesis. =A0The
> exclamation point doesn't add to the argument. =A0Yelling doesn't
> make something true. =A0Calling your opponent's thesis "ludicrous"
> also says nothing, unless you can supply some reason it's
> ludicrous. =A0But you don't. =A0You're "reason" is simply and
> exclamation point. =A0
>
> As a bonus, here you decry the idea of faith based on faith,
> yet you think faith is knowledge and you base fait on knowledge.
> You're the one preaching "faith in faith." =A0
>
> We continue:
>
> > Whenever the terms of *faith* or *belief* =A0are employed, there is
> > present in the
> > mind a consciusness as to the basis on which that *faith* firmly rests
> > in
> > reality. =A0Reality involves *knowing.*
>
> This is another restatement of you're position, with no support.
> It's just a lengthier restatement of your definition of faith.
> My faith is based in Christ. =A0Your faith is based on "knowledge".
> It doesn't further your cause to substitute "knowing", "concsiousness",
> "present in the mind" or "reality" for "knowledge" as if it
> added to the argument. =A0You just restating your thesis with
> synonyms.
>
> We continue:
>
> > Faith is basically a conviction,
>
> Another restatement. Here you do it so you can go on with
> your begging of the question. In theory, we're arguing about
> whether faith is knowledge. =A0
>
No. You are chasing a rabbit down a hole of your own
imagination.
>
> Here, you state that it is, and
> the procede to argue FROM that point, rather than TO that
> point. =A0Note:
>
> > a forced consent, if you will. =A0A consent
> > of the will does not necessarily tend toward or rise up out of
> > evidence or proofs.
> > A consent of the will need not be the result of elevating a
> > supposition into
> > beiief. =A0Supposition is not belief nor a conviction but rather a
> > conjecture.
>
> You've continued to explain what you think knowledge is. What's
> the good of that, when you haven't supported the notion that
> "faith is knowledge"? =A0
>
> > Faith on the other had is determined by evidence, not by volition.
>
> Still speaking as if the argument were settled. =A0This sentence
> makes sense ONLY if we already agree that "faith is knowledge".
> Since we don't, you're just wasting electrons. =A0
>
> > It is the consent of the mid to the reality of the thing in
> > question. =A0
>
> Another restatement. =A0Will you EVER get to an argument?
>
> > Augustine stated that what we know rests on reason while what
> > we believe rests on authority.
>
> Are you even dimly aware that your citation of Augustine
> argues _against_ your point?
>
> > That said, an activity of reason underlies all faith while an
> > activity of faith
> > underlies all knowledge. =A0
>
> Yet another restatement.
>
> > Because this is so, reason in the final analysis rests
> > on authority which is beyond itself.
>
> How can you use "because" here? =A0This is so backward.
> But thankfully, your repetitive logical error is committed
> very concisely here. =A0First you say "faith is knowledge"
> then you say "because this is so...". =A0Yet we're arguing
> whether faith is knowledge, so the order should be
> <argument> THEN "because this is so, faith is knowledge."
>
> What on earth do you think you're accomplishing by assuming
> your conclusion?
>
> > We believe in Christ because we have
> > authoritative knowledge of who He was and what He accomplished because
> > of the reality of who we are before God.
>
> This still assumes "faith is knowledge." =A0Where's your support
> for that statement? =A0Answer: You ain't got it.
>
> It's so sad that a person puts himself in the position of
> lecturer, when he has so much to learn. =A0And you need to
> learn about rhetoric. =A0Desparately.
>
[ sic desperately]
Bart Goddard
lsen...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:41B6D22A-F4CB-CB2F...@art.srcbs.org:
> Bart, you like to present yourself as this great logician,
No, I don't. I'm just an adequate logician. But that's
plenty to deal with your silliness.
> yet here you reply having drawn an unwarranted conclusion
> that I am presenting the argument that *faith is knowledge.*
That's not a conclusion, that's a hypothesis, and you
mistated it. I was quite clear that you say both
things: Faith is knowledge/faith is based on knowledge.
It doesn't matter which you choose, you make the same
(utterly juvenile) logical errors.
> Classic illustration. You're at an intersection waiting for
> the light to turn so that you can walk across the street.
And again, your illustration means nothing. It's about
secular faith and not saving faith. Illustrating secular
faith has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.
But your use of such an illustration demonstrates that
the only way you can think about things is by making
them overly concrete. It shows that your definition of
"faith" _presupposes_ that it is correct. You keep
arguing that "faith" must be such-and-such, but your
argument _depends on_ your definition of faith.
So try, one last time, to get this clear: We're arguing
ABOUT the definition of faith, so your use of your own
definition to support your definition is grossly illogical.
All you do is restate your position over and over.
You never support it. Indeed, all the evidence is
that you don't quite understand what "support" would
consist of.
You are the worst sort of fool there is: One who thinks
he needs to learn nothing.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
lsen...@hotmail.com
On Oct 24, 2:10=A0pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> lsend...@hotmail.com wrote innews:41B6D22A-F4CB-CB2F-BC38-424363A26B60@ar=> No, I don't. =A0I'm just an adequate logician. =A0But that's
> plenty to deal with your silliness.
>
Bart Goddard
lsen...@hotmail.com wrote in
news:9ACDEFEE-1DBC-E77B...@art.srcbs.org:
>
> On Oct 24, 2:10=A0pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> lsend...@hotmail.com wrote
>> innews:41B6D22A-F4CB-CB2F-BC38-424363A26B60@ar=
> t.srcbs.org:
>>
>> > Bart, you like to present yourself as this great logician,
>>
>> No, I don't. =A0I'm just an adequate logician. =A0But that's
>> plenty to deal with your silliness.
>>
> You remind me so much of Matthew. Always so gentle in spirit.
You remind me of Matthew. Always turning to ad hominem when
(what little) logic you have fails you. Either present an
argument, cede the point, or shut up.
An CEO kills 100's of old ladies by jacking up their heating
bills till they can't pay. A street thug kills one or two
old ladies with knife. Both have the same motive, but
somehow the CEO thinks his crime is "gentler" because he
wears a suit and murders by remote control.
Likewise, one must wonder why you think your insults
are more holy than anyone else's. At least my insults are
honest and to the point at hand, while yours are just
plain lies.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Bob Felts
<lsen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2:10pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > lsend...@hotmail.com wrote innews:41B6D22A-F4CB-CB2F-BC38-424363A26B60@ar=
> t.srcbs.org:
> >
> > > Bart, you like to present yourself as this great logician,
> >
> > No, I don't. I'm just an adequate logician. But that's
> > plenty to deal with your silliness.
> >
> You remind me so much of Matthew. Always so gentle in spirit.
>
The last refuge of the clueless. Tone has nothing to do with truth.
Bart is generally right, so even if you don't like the form of the
presentation, you would do well to listen and learn from him --
especially when he's talking about the correct use of logic.
bwme...@toast.net
>Tone has nothing to do with truth.
An outstanding proof of the contrary.
Bob