A humble epistemology

[apothanein kerdos]

One thing to keep in mind AK, there is a difference in the way we think about the tangible and the intangible. God is spirit but we can only "see" him with spiritual eyes. The number 2 represents an amount of something that we can taste, touch, feel, and experience in our flesh.

I like what you wrote in another thread... apologetics deals with all the logical issues about God so that we can evangelize. I see a LOT of value in dealing with the mind in order to get to the spirit. Is the mind not one of the gateways to the heart and spirit anyway according to Romans 12? Even so, the spirit needs to see with spiritual eyes and hear with spiritual ears and I call that revelation.

I created a separate thread for my reply to this (though the first paragraph isn't aimed at you). The reason is discussing the nature of what logic and reasoning are is different from the intention of this thread. So I felt I should probably create another thread for it.

As for what you said, I don't see a disconnect between revelation and logic. I think logic stands above both natural knowledge and revelation as logic is an explanatory event. Since God is logical, His revelation would subsequently be logical.

However, we need the Holy Spirit in order to understand such reasoning. In our fallen state we are in rebellion against God, thus we believe illogical ideas and absolutely refuse to look to the logic of Christianity and revelation because we are rebelling against God.

Evil, by its very nature, is illogical. Satan is the ultimate narcissist, rebelling against God thinking he can actually win. How utterly illogical is that?

(1) God is all-powerful, eternal, and all-knowing. He is not corruptible in the sense that He cannot die. He is not corruptible in the sense that He can be immoral. He is sovereign over all.

(2) Satan is finite, created, and limited in knowledge.

(3) Satan can defeat God

I mean, that's really the logic behind Satan's plan. How absurd and stupid is he? He's blinded by narcissism, which is what blinds the lost in their rebellion against God. Thus, no matter how illogical their conclusions, they refuse to accept the reason.

The Holy Spirit, however, takes us away form such a Satanic syllogism and instead opens our minds to what God has accomplished. That which we once refused to listen to we can now look at. That which we once thought illogical and propositionally be shown to be true.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit - He doesn't supersede our knowledge or go around it, He sanctifies it.

[Brother Mark]

I created a separate thread for my reply to this (though the first paragraph isn't aimed at you). The reason is discussing the nature of what logic and reasoning are is different from the intention of this thread. So I felt I should probably create another thread for it.

As for what you said, I don't see a disconnect between revelation and logic. I think logic stands above both natural knowledge and revelation as logic is an explanatory event. Since God is logical, His revelation would subsequently be logical.

However, we need the Holy Spirit in order to understand such reasoning. In our fallen state we are in rebellion against God, thus we believe illogical ideas and absolutely refuse to look to the logic of Christianity and revelation because we are rebelling against God.

Evil, by its very nature, is illogical. Satan is the ultimate narcissist, rebelling against God thinking he can actually win. How utterly illogical is that?

(1) God is all-powerful, eternal, and all-knowing. He is not corruptible in the sense that He cannot die. He is not corruptible in the sense that He can be immoral. He is sovereign over all.

(2) Satan is finite, created, and limited in knowledge.

(3) Satan can defeat God

I mean, that's really the logic behind Satan's plan. How absurd and stupid is he? He's blinded by narcissism, which is what blinds the lost in their rebellion against God. Thus, no matter how illogical their conclusions, they refuse to accept the reason.

The Holy Spirit, however, takes us away form such a Satanic syllogism and instead opens our minds to what God has accomplished. That which we once refused to listen to we can now look at. That which we once thought illogical and propositionally be shown to be true.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit - He doesn't supersede our knowledge or go around it, He sanctifies it.

They are vastly different AK. Otherwise, only the smartest, most logical people would be saved and holy but scripture tells us that the opposite is true. Scripture teaches that Satan is smarter than we are. That's why Jesus says we are to be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves. Logic has it's place. But it is not how we get to know God nor understand him. We can know about him with it though.

[apothanein kerdos]

They are vastly different AK. Otherwise, only the smartest, most logical people would be saved and holy but scripture tells us that the opposite is true. Scripture teaches that Satan is smarter than we are. That's why Jesus says we are to be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves. Logic has it's place. But it is not how we get to know God nor understand him. We can know about him with it though.

How are they different? Are you saying God is illogical? Are you saying that logic can exist outside of God? Can God propose an illogical revelation?

If He can, then He doesn't exist.

Can we carry this part of the discussion onto the other topic?

[tango]

Tango,

I agree somewhat with this position. The only question I would have is what is the relation between the two? In other words, once we have the Holy Spirit, is it that we are then able to reason in a new way? I ask that because in all my studies, I've seen Christians who barely have an 8th grade education, but have pursued God with the entirety of their beings make FAR more sense and be FAR more logical in what they say than an atheist with a wall full of postgraduate degrees.

To me, this indicates that something happens to our minds at the point of salvation. They use natural tools in knowledge to explain divine revelation. Likewise, it seems that there has to be a basis of natural knowledge in order to receive divine revelation or understand it completely, but natural knowledge is incomplete without divine revelation.

So I wonder what the relationship between the two are.

If we start from the assumption that God created everything it seems entirely reasonable that he left a number of things that we could figure out for ourselves. Just like our mortal parents started us out with brightly coloured bits of plastic to play with until we figured out that the square lump goes in the square hole and the round lump goes in the round hole, so God gave us things we could figure out and build an understanding around.

The relationship between the two is difficult to define. If two people A and B read the same passage in the Bible, with the result that A understands it and B does not, we could argue all sorts of earthly reasons why A has gained knowledge and B has not. It could be down to experience, it could be through reading other parts of the Bible that cross-reference to the passage, it could be by divine revelation. If B is the more academically gifted, well read etc but A gains the understanding, that poses a whole different set of questions.

In terms of what happens at salvation, we receive at least some measure of the Holy Spirit. Without the Spirit there comes a point when the Bible is just so many words (here I compare my own experience of regarding the Bible as an interesting work of literature, but when I was on the road back to God it started to make more sense). If we regard the Bible as being God's letter to his people, then until we are one of his people the Bible makes as much sense as reading someone else's correspondence ever does.

In your example of someone with barely an 8th grade education achieving a deep understanding of things spiritual, that would need to be through divine revelation because otherwise it's almost inconceivable that they could outthink people with post-grad degrees, regardless of the subject of the degrees (there's an obvious parallel with Acts 4:13 here)

I guess I'll come out with my agenda here: I'm attempting to develop an epistemic system that explains the reality of gaining knowledge and truth, but one that relies upon the God of revelation. Though this can't prove Christianity is true, what it does is establish that we do have the best answer (though Jews, Muslims, and any other monotheistic religions that teach in revelation could use it as well - the limits of philosophy...). The point isn't to prove Christianity, but instead to make it plausible.

I know that might seem mundane to some and unimportant to others, but Plantinga developed a system that requires a belief in a designer (though not necessarily revelation) and it's made vast amounts of progress in academia. He helped make Christianity plausible among the upper echelon of philosophical thinkers, meaning that they have to face it and think about it rather than dismiss it.

Thus, I've been coming to all of you to see what the "common man" believes on this issue. I do that because too often philosophers are so stuck in their way of thinking that they can't see the forest through the trees. So far, almost everyone on here has said what I suspected to be true - I'm just trying to fine tune it and discover the logic behind the belief.

Sounds like an interesting project, certainly above my philosophical pay grade so to speak, but one I'd be quite happy to throw any thoughts towards in case they might be useful.

[*Hope*]

My question is - what do you think the Bible teaches on the issue. Does it teach that we are responsible for gaining knowledge or that all knowledge must be revealed to us?

I believe that Scripture teaches there is a role that we play regarding knowledge, and a role that the Holy Spirit plays. While the gospel message is simple, the bible and much of its truth is not. It requires effort, commitment and study in order to grasp most of it. Peter once described Paul’s writings as being very intellectually challenging and hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). It is my belief that the Holy Spirit does not help the believer understand the meaning of Scripture. Instead, I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to our soul, opens our hearts, convicts us, comforts us and helps us be willing to apply the Truth and what He is prompting us to do. There are a lot of verses that people will use to argue against this (such as the Spirit “teaching all things”), but when read in context and using the original Greek texts, it only validates what I’ve just stated regarding the Holy Spirit’s role.

Therefore, I would say we are responsible (and are held accountable) for gaining knowledge, but that we must also rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us in the truth we know.

The biggest problem I have with epistemology is that the inference often appears to be that we can reason ourselves into anything, that gaining knowledge is the ultimate source of life.

As I stated in the topic about logic/reasoning, in order to trust, one must first have the knowledge of truth. In order to have the knowledge of truth, one must first have the capability to determine what is true and what is false. This requires the use of logic and reasoning. If reason and logic are how we determine the Truth, then they lead to the ultimate source of life (Christ). Of course reason and logic alone are useless. But no one has advocated that we are to rely on these tools apart from the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, as I also stated in the other topic, what do you make of Acts chapter 17 where we learn that "large numbers" of people were converted as the result of Paul’s explaining, proving, offering evidence and reasoning with them? And this is not the only example we have. There’s also 1 Peter 3:15, Titus 1:9, Acts 1:3, Acts 17:2-4, Acts 17:17, Acts 18:4, or Acts 19:8 (just to name a few).

When I read your thread, the first thing that came to my mind was Philippians 2, where it says that "all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ Jesus". Wisdom and knowledge that leads to life is not found in reasoning, it is found in Jesus Christ.

But how do we attain wisdom and knowledge apart from reasoning? How do you even determine what is wise or true without reasoning and logic?

1 Corinthians 1 makes it clear that while Jews look for a sign and Greeks look for wisdom, God reveals the good news to the foolish.

This is a severe misrepresentation of these passages. For one, if your interpretation were true, then these verses blatantly contradict Paul’s own practices in all of the verses I just listed above. Secondly, from what I’ve studied, these passages refer to false, prideful use of reason, not the condemnation of reason itself.

Finally, if we understand a little bit of Greek history, we learn that the Greek orators prided themselves with their rhetoric, their speaking abilities and persuasive words. I believe Paul was using them as an example to show a contrast between himself and his message versus the Greek orators. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul advocates that the intellect can determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to judge that the biblical God had acted in history.

Colossians 2 asks where the philosopher and the debater of this age is, which makes me think that the Bible doesn't value knowledge the same way the world does.

Again, a classic misinterpretation of this passage. If we accept your interpretation then it absolutely contradicts Paul’s own actions and lessons elsewhere in Scripture. Since we know it cannot devalue knowledge, it must mean something else. What does it mean? He’s warning against heresy, and deceptive philosophy – not philosophy itself.

And again, it CANNOT mean what you are asserting because if it does then Paul himself contradicts it. In Acts 17:28 we see him even quote pagan philosophers, and elsewhere in Scripture he reveals he is very well studied on the Gnostic philosophy.

I don't think God is very interested in the science of epistemology.

Then you either don’t understand God or you don’t understand epistemology because Scripture teaches otherwise. Have you ever read Matthew 22:27? “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.”

The critical point lies, I believe, in the nature of spiritual life and revelation. Revelation is per definition something that comes to us from outside ourselves.

I don’t understand why this negates the mind and reasoning? How is using your mind not spiritual? Why are you suggesting they are opposed?

We cannot reason ourselves into revelation; we merely receive it. The only part we might play in receiving revelation is opening ourselves up to it.

How would we open ourselves up to it without first reasoning that it were true and worthy of accepting?

But what good is all that reasoning and seeking knowledge. Paul counted it all as loss that He might know Christ, the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His suffering.

Paul could not have meant what you are advocating. Otherwise, as I’ve previously stated, he contradicted his own words both in practice and speech.

[shepherdsword]

As for what you said, I don't see a disconnect between revelation and logic. I think logic stands above both natural knowledge and revelation as logic is an explanatory event. Since God is logical, His revelation would subsequently be logical.

However, we need the Holy Spirit in order to understand such reasoning. In our fallen state we are in rebellion against God, thus we believe illogical ideas and absolutely refuse to look to the logic of Christianity and revelation because we are rebelling against God.


That is the work of the Holy Spirit - He doesn't supersede our knowledge or go around it, He sanctifies it.

I think those that misunderstand your position read over the point in bold a bit too quickly. I have seen this stated in a similar fashion in most of your posts regarding this issue. People seem to glance over it.This position eliminates much of the danger people fear regarding intellect since it establishes a dependency on God.Let me explain how I see this. The root issue of our rebellion was to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge and hence disconnecting our intellect,understanding and moral compass from a dependency on God. It established for us a source of knowledge that was separated totally separated from God . That's when our problems began. We instantly began to evaluate reality based on OUR understanding. Our spirit disconnected from God's Spirit and imploded in on itself in black hole fashion,dying as a result. We see the fullness of this iniquity manifested in the Pharisees when our Lord walked the earth.
They actually sought the very words of God day and night but WITHOUT a reestablishing of the connection between their spirit and God's. Jesus told them:
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

They were actually looking for a form of enlightenment that would save them. They were still looking for a fulfillment of Satan's original promise "You shall be as gods". They never understood that what they needed was a way to connect back to God's spirit so that his life might flow into them.
This lack of understanding was why Nicodemus marveled when Jesus said "you must be born again" If they really understood the root cause of humanity's fall they would have already known that a spiritual regeneration was necessary. Instead they resorted to a pursuit of knowledge WITHOUT depending on God as the source. I think that you(AK) are pursuing knowledge with a dependency on God. The only real dangers in pursuing knowledge are leaning on our own understanding and allowing our knowledge to puff us up. If one pursues it with a humble dependency on God then he may remain safe. That being said I want to ask you a few questions.

What do you think this verse means?

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This seems to imply that we enter in with all the ignorance and trusting acceptance of a child.


People also seem to misunderstand what Paul meant by "simplicity" in 2Cor 11:3It appears that Paul (at first glance) was stating in the verse below, that unless we look at everything in a simple manner then we have been beguiled by the complexity of knowledge as Eve was. However a little research into the greek word translated as "simplicity" yields a totally different definition.
It means:

NT:572
haplotes (hap-lot'-ace); from NT:573; singleness, i.e. (subjectively) sincerity (without dissimulation or self-seeking), or (objectively) generosity (copious bestowal):It appears to be in agreement with my position as I stated above. It means a sincere and selfless desire to be devoted and connected to Jesus. Once this desire becomes self seeking it is at that point we are beguiled. Not when we obtain deeper truth that can sometimes appear complex.


2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Explain your position in light of the verse above and I think it will embellish the key point I see in your position that makes it acceptable for a servant of Christ. A dependency on God.Only He can give us the understanding of those logical concepts that appear to US as if they are "Both P and not P".Only God has the proper prospective to see the distinctions. Perhaps "understanding" isn't the proper word in this case. Maybe "trusting acceptance"?

However, there does remain one danger in your position that I haven't seen you deal with yet. Don't you think the gospel should demonstrate more than just knowledge? What about it's power? Paul seems to suggest that he came with POWER and not just knowledge.

1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

He went on to say that wisdom was for us once we have been made complete.(telos)

In fact, it appears as if he is saying in this verse that preaching with wisdom of words would neutralize the message of the cross:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

What do you think about this?

[apothanein kerdos]

I think those that misunderstand your position read over the point in bold a bit too quickly. I have seen this stated in a similar fashion in most of your posts regarding this issue. People seem to glance over it.This position eliminates much of the danger people fear regarding intellect since it establishes a dependency on God.Let me explain how I see this. The root issue of our rebellion was to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge and hence disconnecting our intellect,understanding and moral compass from a dependency on God. It established for us a source of knowledge that was separated totally separated from God . That's when our problems began. We instantly began to evaluate reality based on OUR understanding. Our spirit disconnected from God's Spirit and imploded in on itself in black hole fashion,dying as a result. We see the fullness of this iniquity manifested in the Pharisees when our Lord walked the earth.
They actually sought the very words of God day and night but WITHOUT a reestablishing of the connection between their spirit and God's. Jesus told them:
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

They were actually looking for a form of enlightenment that would save them. They were still looking for a fulfillment of Satan's original promise "You shall be as gods". They never understood that what they needed was a way to connect back to God's spirit so that his life might flow into them.
This lack of understanding was why Nicodemus marveled when Jesus said "you must be born again" If they really understood the root cause of humanity's fall they would have already known that a spiritual regeneration was necessary. Instead they resorted to a pursuit of knowledge WITHOUT depending on God as the source. I think that you(AK) are pursuing knowledge with a dependency on God. The only real dangers in pursuing knowledge are leaning on our own understanding and allowing our knowledge to puff us up. If one pursues it with a humble dependency on God then he may remain safe. That being said I want to ask you a few questions.

What do you think this verse means?

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This seems to imply that we enter in with all the ignorance and trusting acceptance of a child.


People also seem to misunderstand what Paul meant by "simplicity" in 2Cor 11:3It appears that Paul (at first glance) was stating in the verse below, that unless we look at everything in a simple manner then we have been beguiled by the complexity of knowledge as Eve was. However a little research into the greek word translated as "simplicity" yields a totally different definition.
It means:

NT:572
haplotes (hap-lot'-ace); from NT:573; singleness, i.e. (subjectively) sincerity (without dissimulation or self-seeking), or (objectively) generosity (copious bestowal):It appears to be in agreement with my position as I stated above. It means a sincere and selfless desire to be devoted and connected to Jesus. Once this desire becomes self seeking it is at that point we are beguiled. Not when we obtain deeper truth that can sometimes appear complex.


2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Explain your position in light of the verse above and I think it will embellish the key point I see in your position that makes it acceptable for a servant of Christ. A dependency on God.Only He can give us the understanding of those logical concepts that appear to US as if they are "Both P and not P".Only God has the proper prospective to see the distinctions. Perhaps "understanding" isn't the proper word in this case. Maybe "trusting acceptance"?

However, there does remain one danger in your position that I haven't seen you deal with yet. Don't you think the gospel should demonstrate more than just knowledge? What about it's power? Paul seems to suggest that he came with POWER and not just knowledge.

1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

He went on to say that wisdom was for us once we have been made complete.(telos)

In fact, it appears as if he is saying in this verse that preaching with wisdom of words would neutralize the message of the cross:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

What do you think about this?

I think it summarizes what I have been saying. That knowledge without God is not knowledge at all. Again, quoting from Schaeffer (because this summarizes my view):

I recall a time some years ago when two people professed belief in Christ on the same day. One was a very intelligent doctor, and the other a very simple Swiss peasant. In my previous conversations with them, the peasant would have understood little of my talks with the doctor. Yet, on this day, wen both of them had come to understand their need, as I spoke first to one and then to the other, I was able to use not only the same ideas, but exactly the same words in telling each one the answer to the need. There is no point in being complicated once the intelligent or the simple man understands his need; the same ideas and even the same words are all that is needed. (Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, Complete Works, Vol 1., p 145)

The Gospel is simple in that it can be understood by anyone. God is so magnificent in the way He imparts knowledge unto us all. At the same time, there are mysteries and knowledge within the Gospel that are so deep that we will never finish contemplating upon them. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot understand the Gospel or the true knowledge of God. Our knowledge is limited to what we can know within this natural world. When it comes to God, based upon natural knowledge, the most we can know is that He exists and we're in rebellion against Him. It takes revelation to know the rest, but it is still logical knowledge.

I put it this way - it's simple enough to be understood by a person with no education, but complex enough to baffle the wisest human and leave him searching for more. Truly a paradox.

To deal with the specific Scriptures you offered:

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Notice the context this is surrounded by. He's not talking about our knowledge - He's talking about our attitude. A child is unassuming and trusting of almost anyone. Christ is speaking against the arrogant attitudes that the disciples held at that time, taking the children away as if the Gospel were only for adults.

1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

You have to put Paul in his context. One branch of philosophy back then was Sophistry. The Sophists were cynics (they existed even into the time of Augustine, who wrote Against the Academicians as a response to them) in that they didn't believe in universal knowledge. Thus, they studied rhetoric and were masters of it. They studied all forms of philosophy and learned how to speak for each one. Men would pay the Sophists for their services, having the Sophists defend a position or teach a position to men. They would be extremely persuasive in their argumentation.

Paul is speaking against this. Obviously he's not talking about the wisdom of God (lest we throw out Proverbs), but instead the Sophistry that was occurring around the church at Corinth. He's saying, "I didn't use empty words, I didn't just use elegance of speech to convince you - I used content, content that doesn't come from men contemplating about what they want to believe, but content from God."

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

See the above.

This does add for an interesting note; why is there an emphasis on speech techniques in seminaries? Why do we spend a lot of time teaching our pastors how to speak so they sound more convincing if this is what Paul was avoiding?

[Ascender]

Presentation of the gospel itself is basic, simple and not an issue of convincing another person to believe, but to present the facts thus allowing the Holy Spirit to move.

Discipleship mandates convincing and teaching a new babe in Christ what they need to know in order to mature into Him who is the Head, even Christ. They need to be convinced in order for passion to build. This is how I look at it.

But before we further travel down that rabbit trail, the arguement I would make is that in one sense we have a software program that gives us essentials (apriori knowledge) and this is gained without experience.

There are other things we learn through experience and that we extrapolate further knowledge in regards to so that we "know better" than to jump into an empty pool since based on the experience of a scraped knee, falling is painful. I forget what "priori" this is.

[shepherdsword]

This does add for an interesting note; why is there an emphasis on speech techniques in seminaries? Why do we spend a lot of time teaching our pastors how to speak so they sound more convincing if this is what Paul was avoiding?

It also begs the question "but what about the power?" I am not a cessationist and I have spent many years in the charismatic movement. I have just grown tired of the manipulation and autosuggestion that is passed off as a move of God. I see a stark contrast between the way healing,tongues and prophecy occurred then as opposed to now. With a little investigation it is easy to detect the classic techniques of Anton Mesmer and even the occultic influence of the kundalini force in the reactions of some of the more fanatical manifestations. I can understand why some of the more sensible brothers from the reformed school reject such a farce for the charade it is. BUT, I truly believe that a real restoration of God's power is needed in order to bring forth the end time bride of Christ that is without spot or wrinkle. I understrand that you come from a reformed background but what is yuor take on that?

[Brother Mark]

This does add for an interesting note; why is there an emphasis on speech techniques in seminaries? Why do we spend a lot of time teaching our pastors how to speak so they sound more convincing if this is what Paul was avoiding?

Men don't really learn to preach in power from seminary. That comes from time in the desert with God. Moses, after spending time in the desert lost all confidence in his ability to deliver Israel. Before his time in the desert, he was full of confidence and killed a man. The desert experience made Moses what he was, not all his formal training.

Paul spent 13 years in Arabia learning not to trust himself.

David spent many years living in caves running from Saul learning about the power of God.

John the Baptist spent his whole life in a desert preparing for the greatest 6 month ministry the world had ever seen prior to Christ.

Jesus himself was driven into the desert by the Holy Spirit after being filled with the Holy Spirit at his baptism. However, after the desert he came out in the power of the spirit.

More emphasis has been given in modern times to our ability to think and reason (and these are important) and while not near enough has been given to being placed in a desert where our total dependence must be on God and his power. It is in the desert where we learn the true futility of our abilities.

Grace and peace,

Mark

[Teke]

Teke,

I actually haven't read them. From what I know of the Orthodox church, my assumption is that they're somewhat Platonic in their epistemology (which isn't all that far off from Augustine).

I have been reading an Orthodox publication (well, run by an Orthodox) on bioethics, so I would be interested in seeing the epistemic belief as well.

Orthodox epistemology is found in the understanding of glorification, theosis, illumination.

You rightly point out Augustin in Platonic relation.
Westerners have two analogies they gleaned from Augustin, 'analogy of being' and 'analogy of faith'.
But he presented a confused philosophical method alien to the patristic tradition. Apart from using scripture, he also used the methodology of logic and philosophical rumination.

Basically this is an attempt by the west to show there is a similarity between the created and uncreated. The eastern church rejects such an idea.

Plato's and Neo-Platonist's teachings on archetypes was condemned by Orthodox. Because the Platonic perception of God is anthropomorphic.

William Ockham created a tradition in the west, that didn't accept the analogy of being between the created and uncreated. Basically a general attack against Plato's archetypes. But he didn't abolish the analogy of faith. Luther embraced it, and taught two faiths. The one being of the intellectual type, the other of logical acceptance. Man accepts something by logic and believes what he's accepted. However, this is not vindicating faith.

As scripture says, man cannot be saved by 'faith alone'. So it is not a faith of logical acceptance, but inner faith. Luther did observe the other faith, that is a gift of God and is activated inside the heart. But he didn't go any further than this. He could have with patristic perception.

So this analogy of faith also doesn't exist in Orthodoxy. Between scripture and truth regarding God there is no 'analogy of faith'. Scriptural meanings regarding God are rescindable meanings. Rescinded by the experience of theosis, such as are found in patristics.

However, this is just a couple of mistakes the east sees in the west's theological approach of epistemology.

And I'm not sure what to make of your thread. If I recall from your posts, you are already aware of Ockham. So where does that put you presently in thought on the matter.

Forgive me if my post sounds to negative, but such is the process of apophatic thought. That is, to better understand you and to get at the present truth.
Since I know you do have some understanding of what I'm speaking of, I see no reason to give detailed outlines of my summations.
To others, as one poster put it, it may sound like the "wildly misunderstood" of Orthodoxy.

So what are you trying to get at AK?

[apothanein kerdos]

It also begs the question "but what about the power?" I am not a cessationist and I have spent many years in the charismatic movement. I have just grown tired of the manipulation and autosuggestion that is passed off as a move of God. I see a stark contrast between the way healing,tongues and prophecy occurred then as opposed to now. With a little investigation it is easy to detect the classic techniques of Anton Mesmer and even the occultic influence of the kundalini force in the reactions of some of the more fanatical manifestations. I can understand why some of the more sensible brothers from the reformed school reject such a farce for the charade it is. BUT, I truly believe that a real restoration of God's power is needed in order to bring forth the end time bride of Christ that is without spot or wrinkle. I understrand that you come from a reformed background but what is yuor take on that?

There's reformed and then there's Reformed. I'm the small "r." Meaning that the majority of my beliefs align within the camp of reformation theology, but I don't tote the party line.

For instance, I fully believe that the gifts (all of them, including tongues) are alive and well today.

This, ironically enough, leads back to the topic. God gives us the ability to use our gifts for His glory, but we have to use them. Could it likewise be possible then, that He could give us knowledge that we would then be responsible for, in using it for His glory?

[Gregg]

If I look at knowledge through the filter of worldly man it is much different than looking at it through the filter of God's will. When we become Christians our lives, gifts, and talents are now used for a much different purpose. God does not need us for anything, yet he gives us gifts to use to do his good works. When we use those gifts we are blessed in feeling closer to God. When I prayed for wisdom it was so I could reach people and be used as a tool to help them. I seem to have been given a talent to help those afflcted with what the world would call addictions. Most of what I have learned I got from someone else, though I believe was orchestrated by God. Sometime in my life, I may need something that I got from this very thread. Would it be me using the talents and desire that God gave me or would it be God revealing what is needed? The answer is yes.

Apoth,

I just started getting acquainted with you about a month ago. What a gift and what a blessing you are. Part of that gift is the desire that God gives you to seek to hone and work with that gift. I am not meant to be a musician, I am not meant to be a doctor, I am not meant to be a Christian Philosopher, but that does not mean that I won't want or need to be blessed by those that have the gift. Our knowledge, wisdom and talents take on a much different meaning once we become part of the body of Christ. All working together for His Glory is a beautiful thing.

Thank you all for sharing your gifts on this site.

[*Hope*]

I thought this topic could use a *bump*