Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[jimwalton]

Charlie, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that Christian epistemology doesn't match up with reality. I agree that it DOES. It's just that the subject of conversation was the place of faith in knowledge, not whether Christians have access to information through revelation that unbelievers don't. All of the verses that you're throwing out—of course I agree with that, but that's not the subject. Of course "A Christian's ontological assertions and epistemological system has to begin with the fear of the Lord." Of course we believe in God. Of course I'm not talking about an epistemology devoid of the knowledge of God. The question was about FAITH and KNOWLEDGE. I asked a question about "sailing", and you're commenting about "the nature of water". I agree that any Christian's knowledge is informed by revelation in addition to reason. That's a given, but it's not what I asked. I don't want you to "bow out". Of course I agree that we have to be Biblical. I honestly don't know where this is coming from. I want to know about the integration of faith and knowledge, but your point is that the most complete knowledge comes from a relationship with God. I AGREE. My comments to you have been trying to direct the conversation back to the original post, not because I disagree with a biblical epistemology.

[The Charlie Factory]

We start at seemingly very different points. Faith/belief is a biblical word which I allow the Bible to define, as is knowledge. This is why I do not accept the definitions given here thus far. Faith/belief is believing God's Word about whatever he says. Knowledge without reference to God is not light but darkness.

In a discussion of faith and knowledge, if we redefine the words to allow for secularly determined definitions then are we not bowing to the darkness instead of bringing light.

I was initially chided for not being specific enough but speaking to generalities. I began to be specific from a biblical perspective and now am being told to back off so we can discuss secular generalities.

I have been told that the Bible does not speak to everything and therefore to allow the pagan philosophers to give light where the Bible is silent.

I have been told that Rom 1:18-23 proves the common grace of a working epistemology for the unbeliever. However, this is not what it teaches.

Romans 1:18–23 (ESV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

It shows that there is a working epistemology for everyone but that everyone, as an unbeliever, makes it so that the working epistemology (thinking) is futile and their foolish hearts are darkened. As I understand it, this means the disbeliever's epistemology is willfully destroyed by their suppression. It does not speak to God's grace to allow the epistemology of the unbeliever to continue to work even after they suppress. Their epistemology functions in as much as what they "know" still allows it to function. However, in their willful suppression they are inconsistent with what they "know" and that is evident in their professed epistemology and ontology. The disbeliever's epistemology works because they still operate according to what they deny (self-deception) not because what they profess epistemologically is somehow carried by common grace so that it still works even though it is wrong. The disbeliever operates according to God's provided epistemology. They just deny it.

If we are not using the Bible as the authority to define biblical words or govern the discussion then I continue to stand in what I said and will bow out if I am being "too biblical."

[jimwalton]

Charlie, I did give you a biblical definition of faith: Heb. 11.1. You chide me for making up my own, or by going with secular definitions, but that's not what I did at all. Faith is evidence and assurance (Heb. 11.1).

You said, "Knowledge without reference to God is not light but darkness." I AGREE.

You said, "if we redefine the words to allow for secularly determined definitions then are we not bowing to the darkness instead of bringing light." I AGREE, but the Bible doesn't define a lot of words for us.

"I began to be specific from a biblical perspective and now am being told to back off so we can discuss secular generalities." That's not what I'm suggesting. I don't want to discuss secular generalities apart from a biblical perspective, I want to talk about FAITH and KNOWLEDGE.

"I have been told that Rom 1:18-23 proves the common grace of a working epistemology for the unbeliever. However, this is not what it teaches." That's not what I said. Although v. 20 clearly indicates that knowledge is a common grace. But Paul is not attempting to give a working epistemology, he's building a case for universal sin.

This paragraph that you wrote, starting with "It shows that there is a working epistemology for everyone..." I AGREE WITH IT. I agree with everything you said here.

"If we are not using the Bible as the authority to define biblical words or govern the discussion..." We ARE using the Bible as the authority to define biblical words and govern the discussion.

Instead of starting with fallen humanity in Romans 1, let's shift the discussion to the NATURE OF FAITH in Hebrews 11. First of all, we'll notice that faith is not defined as believing what God says. It's defined as "assurance; substantial nature; essence; actual being; reality in contrast to perceptions" (hupostasis) and "certainty; proof" (elegxos). "Faith" in v. 6 is conviction that God truly exists and acts as the Word reveals him to act. As we continue through the chapter we find that faith is...

To accept God’s plan of salvation (Abel, Noah)
To stand against the world (Enoch, Noah)
To do what God asks (Noah, Abraham; Joshua)
To go where God says (Abraham; Joshua)
To expect the impossible (Abraham; Moses; Joshua)
To expect God to fulfill his promises (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)
To give up all (Abraham, Moses)
To do things in God’s very non-normal way (Abraham, Moses)
To obey in spite of appearances (Moses)

Now, how does FAITH intersect with KNOWLEDGE?

[Jesse James]

Jim, when you ask the question about the interplay between faith and knowledge, do you distinguish between the term "faith" as it applies to the tollwoing two things, each of which can be doubted to some degree and requires a decision that the doubt is not a serious threat to the belief system?

1. belief in Biblical principles and claims; that is, a Biblical anthropology, theology (who we are, who God is) and the Gospel, (that is, "faith" being defined as "the belief that the Bible is reliable and reflects things as they are" and "belief in and acting on a dynamic relationship with the living God)

and

2. belief in other truth claims or generic things (questions like: are our senses reliable, is the US culpable for carrying out the 9/11 attacks; or truth claims like: the sun revolves around the earth, or force is equal to mass times acceleration) (that is, "faith" being defined as "the belief that the natural order can be adequately apprehended to the degree that reliable knowledge which reflects things as they are is possible").

Or do you consider "faith" to be more comprehensive and to apply simultaneously to both of the above, apparently distinct, realms? Can these even be separated legitimately? In this third case, would it be appropriate to define "faith" as "the belief that our understanding and certainty of what we know (epistemology) is reliable" despite the potential for doubt?

If the first is generally called "religion" and the second is generally called "science," could it be justifiably said that both realms are harmonious? I guess this boils down to the big question: "science and faith - are they mutually exclusive, complementary, unrelated, etc?"

Similarly Jim, how, in your question is "knowledge" defined? Is it knowledge of physical reality, knowledge of God, both?

It seems like, to me, the totality of existence (including physical and spiritual reality) is within God's purview. If that is the case, how does that affect your question about the intersection of faith and knowledge.

Great topic.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the post, Jesse. Sorry I'm getting so frustrated. It's been a busy week, and I don't understand why the communication here is so skew (not intersecting). Don't worry about hijacking the conversation. The point is to learn, by whatever means.

By "faith" I don't mean your #1 choice. That to me is the foundation of biblical teaching, and I consider it to be "knowledge." I also define scientific certainties as knowledge (gravity, the existence of the sun, the existence of the earth, energy, magnetism, velocity, matter, etc.) For "faith" I would go with #2: How do we as Christians function mentally in the world. It's different than how unbelievers function in the world. As per scientific and rational admission, we as humans know far less than we think we do. Much of what we think we know is tentative at best, speculative at mediant, and "faith" by most counts (and not necessarily religious faith. Christians, on the others hand, have access to information by revelation that unbelievers don't have: God's truth revealed, his Word of Truth, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. And yet I still live by faith, in a sense as unbelievers do, but in most senses not at all as they do. My "knowledge" rests on a completely different plane as well as the normal plane, so that I am living in two heads, two minds, two worlds, and yet they melt into one: the life I live in God (which is more like your #3). I like your paragraph:

"Or do you consider 'faith' to be more comprehensive and to apply simultaneously to both of the above, apparently distinct, realms? Can these even be separated legitimately? In this third case, would it be appropriate to define "faith" as "the belief that our understanding and certainty of what we know (epistemology) is reliable" despite the potential for doubt?"

Science and faith—are they mutually exclusive? Absolutely not. Truth crosses all barriers. I believe in absolute truth. If any thing is truth, it's true everywhere and all the time. If it's true in science, then it's true, period. And if it's true about God, then it's true, period. Science is our observations about the way God made the world, so science and faith can't possibly be mutually exclusive. In that sense I'm complementarian.

Knowlege is harder to define, and that's why philosophers, scientists, and theologians have a harder time getting a handle on it. Practically speaking it's the working of our rational minds, and how we intersect with, process, and accept our natural and our rational environment.

Of course I believe that the totality of existence is within God's purview. But it's NOT within mine, hence my question. How can we best adequately intersect with, process, and accept our natural environment given our finite thought boundaries and yet with access to this glorious wealth of revelational knowledge that comes to us through our relationship with Christ?