Chapter 2.3

Born Again Believing

The Divine Plan for Believing

Table of Topics

A) The Truth about Truth

A.1) Defining Truth

A.2) All Truth is God’s Truth

A.3) Skepticism is Self-refuting

B) The Types of Belief

B.1) Belief vs. Knowledge

B.2) False vs. True Beliefs

B.3) Vital vs. Minor Beliefs

B.4) Moral vs. Amoral Beliefs

C) The Sources of Belief: Divine Revelation & Human Information

C.1) Divine Revelation vs. Human Information

C.2) Direct vs. Indirect Knowledge

Table 2.3: Sources & Types of Knowledge

D) The Process of Believing: Human Research

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Truth is what conforms to reality.

Because philosophical postmodernism denies there is absolute truth, we can state confidently that there is no such thing as a postmodern Christian in this philosophical sense.

We would define a biblical model of epistemology (or how we know what we know), as: we know things through data sources that are processed by our God-given reasoning faculties, which result in beliefs, which have varying levels of accuracy and certainty.

A completed divine revelation (i.e. Creation, Scripture) becomes an object of human research (i.e. science, theology) in order to gain knowledge of God, or anything else.

• The power and authority of truth is illustrated when Cecil B. deMille observed of the principles contained in his monumental movie, The Ten Commandments: “It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law”
• Knowledge is the scope of what we understand.
• Knowledge is necessary for belief, but belief is not necessary for knowledge.
• Belief is the knowledge of what we think is true with various levels of certainty.
• Beliefs essentially dictate who we are and what we do and “are the rails upon which our lives run.”
• It is important to distinguish between moral and amoral beliefs because only in the former can we sin against God.
• The ultimate sources of our data on which our beliefs derive from are the actions and words of either God (divine revelation) or humans (human information).
• Our experience of data sources can be categorized as direct or indirect. A divine vision is an example of the former while “faith” refers to the latter.

If we will think about it for a moment, it will be agreed that everything God does to, or through us, He does to or through our mind.

A) The Truth about Truth

A.1) Defining Truth

Many today are asking the same question that Pontius Pilate asked God the Son one day: “What is truth?” (John 18:38). The Roman governor spoke out of the innate human need for truth. To not know what truth is or what is true is to be deceived and therefore in danger of acting contrary to reality and suffering the dire consequences.

It is difficult to underestimate the importance of truth in a Universe created by a God of truth. We get some indication of this when we read that the King, “came from the Father full of grace and truth” and that “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:14, 17). What did Christ come to bring? “Grace and truth,” because we needed both so badly. Accordingly, long-time defender of the truth, John MacArthur writes:

Every idea we have, every relationship we cultivate, every belief we cherish, every fact we know, every argument we make, every conversation we engage in, and every thought we think presupposes that there is such a thing as “truth.” The idea is an essential concept, without which the human mind could not function. ^[1]

Webster’s Dictionary defines truth as: “the property of being in accord with fact or reality.” ^[2] Accordingly, the great nineteenth century American theologian Charles Hodge wrote:

The primary idea of truth is that which is trustworthy, that which sustains our expectations, which does not disappoint, because it really is what it is assumed or declared to be. It is opposed to the deceitful, the false, the unreal, the empty, and the worthless. To regard a thing as true is to regard it as worthy of trust, as being what it purports to be. ^[3]

More specifically, E. J. Carnell provides a more Christian definition of truth when he writes:

Since the mind of God perfectly knows reality, truth is a property of that judgment which coincides with the mind of God. If man, thus, fails to say about reality what God says about it, he has made an error; for God, the source and power of all proper meaning and fact, cannot err in His judgment. Truth for the Christian, then, is defined as correspondence with the mind of God. ^[4]

Along the same lines, Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Professors of Theology at Denver Seminary suggest three criteria for truth and illustrate them in Scripture when they write:

By what criteria do we know when our affirmations conform to God’s thinking and to existence as it is [i.e. truth]? Three signs of true affirmations are characteristic of apostolic teaching. True statements convey propositions that are (1) empirically reliable, (2) existentially viable, and (3) logically noncontradictory. It follows, then, that error is failure to meet these three standards. Because scholars holding a merely dynamic or functional view of inspiration deny that these criteria are biblical it is necessary to document their use in the New Testament especially. . . .

The teaching of John’s epistles is presented as empirically reliable. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” (I John 1:1). John also stressed empirical verification in his Gospel by recording many visible “signs” indicating that Jesus was the Christ, and especially the visible, audible, and tangible signs of the Lord’s risen body. . . .

John also commends his written message as existentially viable. John writes his second Epistle with the authority of an “elder” who experientially knows and loves the truth that lives in us and will be with us forever (2 John 1:1-2). . . . Clearly in the New Testament truth can be lived, and was personally experienced.

The Apostles commend New Testament teaching as true, furthermore, because its sayings are faithful, or logically noncontradictory. In teaching about faithfulness to oaths made to the Lord, the Master had asked that his followers not swear by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or their own heads. “Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one” (Matt. 5:33-37). ^[5]

Jesus Christ, of course, claimed a knowledge of absolute truth, and not only that, but that He was the absolute “Truth” (John 14:6). The Apostle John describes Him as a man, “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14; cf. 1:17). Accordingly, there are almost eighty times in which the Gospels collectively record Him introducing His teaching with “I tell you the truth.”

God has designed us to be able to discern truth. Our minds are such that they can recognize contradictions, and evaluate truth claims. As discussed elsewhere, God expects even unregenerate minds to recognize His existence by observing the cosmos (cf. Rom 1:18-20). ^[6] The reason humans are ultimately held accountable for knowing certain truths is that we are able to know them. Truth is the truth whether we believe it or not.

Here we are reminded of the incident described by Frank Koch in the Naval Institute’s magazine, Proceedings:

Two battleships assigned to the training squadron had been at sea on maneuvers in heavy weather for several days. I was serving on the lead battleship and was on watch on the bridge as night fell. The visibility was poor with patchy fog, so the captain remained on the bridge keeping an eye on all activities.

Shortly after dark, the lookout on the wing of the bridge reported, “Light, bearing on the starboard bow.” “Is it steady or moving astern?” the captain called out. The lookout replied, “Steady, captain,” which meant we were on a dangerous collision course with that ship. The captain then called to the signalman, “Signal that ship: We are on a collision course, advise you change course 20 degrees.” Back came a signal, “Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees.” The captain said, “Send, I’m a captain, change course 20 degrees,” “I’m a seaman second class,” came the reply. “You had better change course 20 degrees.”

By that time, the captain was furious. He spat out, “Send, I’m a battleship. Change course 20 degrees.” Back came the flashing light, “I’m a lighthouse.” We changed course. ^[7]

Stephen Covey, who relates this story, remarks:

Principles [truths] are like lighthouses. They are natural laws that cannot be broken. As Cecil B. deMille observed of the principles contained in his monumental movie, The Ten Commandments, “It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law” ^[8]

Indeed, Christ is the ultimate “lighthouse,” and “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall” (1 Pet 2:8). There is coming a day when everyone’s belief will conform to the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord and, “at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:10-11 NLT).

A.2) All Truth is God’s Truth

It is important to be reminded of the familiar statement: all truth is God’s truth. Scientific discoveries that reflect reality rather than theories are just as true as a statement of supernaturally revealed and authenticated Scripture. The accurate scientific truth may not be as valuable or important as the scriptural truth, but it is still truth. Accordingly, the great Reformed theologian B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) argued:

We must not then as Christians assume an attitude of antagonism toward the truths of reason, or to the truths of philosophy, or the truths of science, or the truths of history, or the truths of criticism. As children of the light we must be careful to keep ourselves open to every ray of light. . . .

Let us then cultivate an attitude of courage as over against the investigations of the day. . . . None should be more zealous in them than we. None should be quicker to discern truth in every field, more hospitable to receive it, more loyal to follow it, whithersoever it leads. It is not for Christians to be lukewarm in regard to the investigations and discoveries of the time. Rather as followers of the truth, indeed we can have no safety in science or in philosophy save in the arms of truth.

It is for us, therefore, as Christians to push investigation to the utmost; to be leaders in every science; to stand in the vanguard of criticism; to be the first to catch in every field the voice of the Revealer of truth who is also our Redeemer. The curse of the church has been her apathy to truth in which she has often left to her enemies that study of nature and of history and of philosophy and even that investigation of her own peculiar treasures, the Scriptures of God which should have been her chief concern. . . .

She has nothing to fear from the truth; but she has everything to fear, and she already suffered nearly everything, from ignorance. All truth belongs to us as followers of Christ, the Truth; let us at length enter into our inheritance. ^[9]

A.3) Skepticism is Self-refuting

That some things are true and others not true is self-evident, and essential to any human understanding or communication. Reformed theologian and philosopher Roger Nicole writes:

If there is no distinction between true and false [then] . . . there is no meaning to language, and even those who would rejoice in that could find no appropriate word to express their feeling!” ^[10]

Even those who would claim there is no such thing as truth, imply there is by their very denial of it. Unfortunately relativism has thoroughly invaded our world and has made significant inroads into the Church as well. Those who would claim knowledge of absolute truth are often considered arrogant or insane. It would seem that the Roman governor was just as skeptical as some others have been that anyone can really claim to know the truth.

Richard Rorty, for example, a founding father of modern skepticism, suggested that truth be defined merely as:

What it is better for us to believe [rather than] the accurate representation of reality. . . . [Truth] is simply an automatic and empty compliment which we pay to those beliefs which are successful in helping us do what we want to do. ^[11]

Evidently, this includes lying to others to get our way, or even lying to ourselves to feel better. Along the same lines, Christian apologist J. P. Moreland comments:

Today, people are inclined to think that the sincerity and fervency of one’s beliefs are more important than the content of the beliefs themselves. As long as we believe something honestly and strongly, we are told, that is all that matters. Nothing is further from the truth. Reality is basically indifferent to how sincerely we believe something.

I can believe with all my might that my car will fly me to Hawaii or that homosexuality is caused solely by the brain, but that fervency doesn’t change a thing. As far as reality is concerned, what matters is not whether I like a belief or how sincere I am in believing it, but whether or not the belief is true. I am responsible for what I believe and, I might add, for what I refuse to believe because the content of what I do or do not believe makes a tremendous difference to what I become and how I act. ^[12]

Likewise, Paul Feinberg, Professor of Theology at Trinity writes:

We live in what has been called “postmodern” times, and one form of postmodernism [deconstructionism] rejects the belief that there is anything that might be called objective, absolute truth. ^[13]

 

Accordingly, we can state confidently that there is no such thing as a postmodern Christian in this philosophical sense.

The self-refuting nature, and historical scarcity of such epistemological skepticism is addressed by Christian philosopher Stephen Davis:

The philosophical skeptic is the person who denies or doubts that any proposition can be known. . . . A casual look at the literature in the history of philosophy might make one think that philosophical skeptics abound. Many epistemologists attack the arguments of the philosophical skeptic with an energy that suggests a deep-seated conviction that there are skeptics hiding under every rock and that they must be refuted. But in actuality there have been few philosophical skeptics. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that the most obvious form of philosophical skepticism is self-contradictory. The skeptic who says “Nothing can be known” is clearly making a knowledge-claim; that is, he is claiming to know that “nothing can be known.”

Philosophers like to believe that the positions they espouse have relevance to real life. But what we notice about skepticism is that there have been no consistent skeptics in the history of philosophy. There have been skeptics like Sextus who claim to doubt that any nonevident thing can be known but who go on living as if nonevident things can be known. ^[14]

B) The Types of Belief

B.1) Belief vs. Knowledge

While truth reflects the facts of reality, our knowledge reflects the degree of our mental grasp of the truth. Webster’s defines knowledge as:

The range of one’s information or understanding. The condition of apprehending truth of fact. Knowledge applies to facts or ideas acquired by study, investigation, observation, or experience. ^[15]

In simplest terms, our knowledge is what we understand. However, it is important to note here that we do not believe everything we know or understand. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul says that, in regards to unbelievers, the revelation of Creation has made God’s “eternal power and divine nature” “plain to them,” “clearly seen [kathorao ^[16]], being understood [noieo ^[17]]” such that “they knew [gnōntes: “had knowledge of”] God” (Rom 1:19-21). The gnōsis (“knowledge”) word group of NT Greek does not automatically imply an acceptance of such knowledge such that it becomes belief. In general it means to merely understand, perceive, or know what a certain collection of data means. ^[18] However, such knowledge may fall short of believing that the data that we understand is also true.

Accordingly, understanding and knowing Creation’s message about God is not the same thing as accepting it as true and therefore believing it. It is because unbelievers adequately understand and have a knowledge of the message of God’s existence that they “are without excuse” (v. 20). It is because they do not believe the message that “they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him” (v. 21).

A distinction between knowing (understanding) and believing (faith) seems to be reflected as well when the Apostle Peter is recorded as telling Christ, “We believe [pepisteukamen] and know [egnōkamen] that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:69). Likewise, the Apostle John writes, “We have come to know [egnōkamen] and have believed [pepisteukamen] the love which God has for us” (4:16). While a basis of knowledge is certainly necessary for any real belief to exist, knowledge and understanding can be possessed without believing.

For example, many non-Christians can accurately describe the Christian Gospel concerning how to be saved, and therefore understand it quite well. However, they have not accepted it as true, and therefore, have not believed it. This, at times, explains our own relationship to the Scriptures. Some will claim they really believe a promise, command, or doctrine of Scripture such as God’s forgiveness for the Christian. They can even quote the verses relating to the doctrine and explain it to others. However, their continual sense of guilt and condemnation exposes the fact that they merely understand (know) the doctrine but do not fully accept (believe) it for themselves. ^[19]

Therefore, our knowledge includes those things that we believe and those things we disbelieve. Along the same lines, knowledge is necessary for belief, but belief is not necessary for knowledge. In other words, we cannot truly believe something we have no knowledge or understanding of. ^[20]

While knowledge is what we understand, belief is the knowledge we think is true with various levels of certainty. ^[21] Accordingly, Webster’s defines belief as: “Conviction of the truth of some statement . . . based on examination of evidence.” ^[22] Beliefs, then, are an incredibly important concept because they essentially dictate who we are and what we do. Proverbs says, “For as he thinks within himself, so he is” (23:7 NASB). ^[23] As Dr. Moreland puts it: “Beliefs are the rails upon which our lives run.” ^[24] God has ordained things such that even our eternal destiny depends on what (and Who) we believe in. ^[25]

B.2) False vs. True Beliefs

If our beliefs depend on our knowledge then it follows that if our understanding of something is incorrect, our belief in such knowledge will not be true, or reflect reality. False knowledge will always lead to false beliefs. However, even correct knowledge does not guarantee a true belief, because, as noted above, there is more to believing something then understanding it. While non-Christians can correctly understand the Gospel, their belief that it is not true is a false belief, not reflecting reality. Therefore, some of the things we believe will accurately reflect reality, and others are lies. As the Missionary Alliance preacher A. W. Tozer (1897-1963) said:

The world is for all of us not only what it is; it is what we believe it to be. And a tremendous load of woe or weal rides on the soundness of our interpretation. ^[26]

While all of God’s knowledge and resulting belief is true, ours is not. Obviously one goal God has for our lives, is that our knowledge and beliefs would increasingly conform to the truth. Therefore, Paul writes:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern [false beliefs] of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind [with true beliefs]. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–His good, pleasing and perfect will. (Rom 12:2)

Likewise, the Apostle Paul wrote:

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. (1 Cor 3:18-20)

He writes as well:

So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. (Eph 4:17-18)

The Apostle’s concern is obviously that Christians would conform their knowledge and subsequent beliefs to the truth. Indeed, because Christ is “the Truth” (John 14:6), we automatically align our knowledge and beliefs with reality when we believe and obey His teaching and imitate His life. It is to just such people to whom Christ promised: “If you hold to My teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32) from the great and even eternal dangers of deception. Believing some lies will damn you to an eternity in Hell. But if we believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, our destiny is eternal paradise. God has ordained that believing what is true is critically important to our whole existence.

Pastoral Practices

• King David wrote: “Surely you desire truth in the inner parts” (Ps 51:6). We know that God wants us to be filled with the truth, because, “Blessed is the man . . . in whose spirit is no deceit” (Ps 32:2). God knows that lies imprison the human soul and keep us from becoming what we were intended to be. As our knowledge and beliefs conform more with “the Truth,” our spiritual, emotional, and psychological bondage can be broken and we are free to become the people God wants us to be.

As Teachers then, we need to “watch [our] life and doctrine closely” ensuring that they are in line with the truth of Scripture, “because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” from the great damage that deception can do.

B.3) Vital vs. Minor Beliefs

While it is obviously important for our beliefs to be true, not all true beliefs are equal in importance. The truth you possess about Jesus Christ is far more important than what you correctly know about George Washington. This underscores the exceeding value of the knowledge that can be obtained from Scripture. It is not only absolutely true, but incredibly important. In fact, the most important truth available to humans is a belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ because this not only has the greatest impact on their temporary earthly life, but on their eternal destiny as well.

Along these lines, Dr. Moreland writes of the centrality of a belief which is demonstrated by how foundational it is to other beliefs:

The centrality of a belief is the degree of importance the belief plays in your entire set of beliefs, that is, in your worldview. The more central a belief is, the greater the impact on one’s worldview were the belief given up. My belief that prunes are good for me is fairly strong (even though I don’t like the belief), but it isn’t very central for me. I could give it up and not have to abandon or adjust very many other beliefs I hold. But my beliefs in absolute morality, life after death, or the Christian faith are very central for me. ^[27]

Pastoral Practices

• In Christian theology we need to often discern between vital and minor teachings of Scripture as well. Those things that are especially clear in Scripture, and have a practical, even protective effect on the sheep need to be prioritized. Issues that are unclear, and/or have little practical effect and would bring no harm if not understood should not be allowed to become a major issue. ^[28]

B.4) Moral vs. Amoral Beliefs

In our day, it is especially important to distinguish between moral and amoral beliefs. This is because it is popular in American Christianity to suggest you can sin against God or be outside of His will in an amoral conviction such as which job to choose, where to live, or what Christian person to marry.

Webster’s defines moral as: “relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior . . . sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment.” ^[29] Moral desires are those involving ethics of right and wrong, fair and unfair. Moral desires concern how we treat persons, including humans and God. All of God’s moral desires, without exception, have been communicated in Scripture.

By amoral beliefs we do not mean immoral. Webster’s simply defines amoral as, “being neither moral or immoral; lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply.” ^[30] Amoral decisions concern things that are logically true or false, not morally right or wrong, and have no ethical ingredient. Amoral matters often include merely personal preferences such as choosing what flavor of ice cream we will have for dessert. Accordingly, amoral beliefs are extrabiblical. This does not mean unbiblical, but they are simply things that God does not speak of in Scripture, and therefore leaves to our own reasoning and preferences. And because sinning against God always involves morality, you cannot sin in an amoral belief or decision. ^[31]

Pastoral Practices

• Legalism is just another way in which we make something that is an amoral issue to God, a moral issue for His people. Whenever our human preferences, traditions, or incorrect understanding of Scripture adds to the actual divine commands of Scripture, we commit the great and damaging sin of legalism, in which we place expectations on God’s sheep that not even the Chief Shepherd has. Be willing and diligent to evaluate the teaching of your church in light of what God has actually commanded, not how we or others have decided to apply that command, which is something God would desire freedom in. In other words, do not add to Scripture!

C) The Sources of Belief: Divine Revelation & Human Information

C.1) Divine Revelation vs. Human Information

In general, we can say that all of our knowledge comes from two sources: divine and human. We refer to these two sources respectively as divine revelation and human information. Divine revelation derives from the words or actions of God, and include such things as Creation, the Incarnation, Scripture, and miracles. Human information comes from the words, actions, and thinking of humans, and includes personal experiences, historical events, family upbringing, secular schools, media, books, and perhaps most of what we experienced today.

Obviously, we receive a great deal of our information through sources originating in humanity. However, one great problem is that much of it is not true. This is because its source is imperfect humans. On the other hand, divine revelation is always true because it comes from God.

In addition, divine revelation is infinitely more important than the merely human kind. For example, a business man can learn all he needs to know to run a business successfully through human information including business principles that have been developed by other humans based on experience and reason. However, we learn from Scripture (a source of divine revelation) that success is not defined by simply being effective, as any profit-making business would essentially be. We learn from the divine revelation of Scripture that living rightly and successfully includes pleasing God because in the End we will be judged for our morality, not just our effectiveness. Therefore, to truly live successfully, the business man is greatly blessed by the divine revelation concerning how the operation of his business relates to God and his final divine judgment.

The superior value of divine revelation over human information is reflected when God says:

Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom [that he has derived from human information] . . . but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows Me [through divine revelation], that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on Earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD. (Jer 9:23-4)

Of course, the most important information available to human kind is the Gospel, which can only come from divine revelation, and not human information (cf. 1 Cor 1:18-2:16). ^[32]

Pastoral Practices

• Does your diet of information reflect the fact that the divine revelation of Scripture is much more valuable than human information? Is this not especially true for the Pastor? It was to a Church leader that the Apostle said, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God [i.e. Pastor ^[33]] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16). Far too many Pastors spend far too much time reading mere human information on such things as “church growth,” church marketing, management, etc. Let us be more convinced that Scripture is more sufficient for “every good work” the King would have us do. ^[34]

C.2) Direct vs. Indirect Knowledge

Both divine revelation and human information have their direct and indirect aspects. For example, biblical Prophets and Apostles received their divine revelation in a direct way, God personally and physically appearing and/or communicating to them. However, the writings of the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture are a source of a more indirect divine revelation to us. Likewise, because we did not personally see God create the Universe, that too comes to us in an indirect manner. The best example of direct divine revelation that Christians receive are miracles that we personally experience, the foremost being the supernatural moral transformation of born again Christians.

Likewise, some of our human information comes from direct personal experience (i.e. you’ve lived in Paris), while most of it comes in an indirect way (someone told you about Paris). For a comparison of these two sources of information see the following table.

Table 2.3: Sources & Types of Knowledge

		Type
		Direct	Indirect
Source	Divine	Direct Divine Revelation Revelation of Apostles & Prophets Personal experience of a miracle	Indirect Divine Revelation Creation, Scripture, etc.
	Human	Direct Human Information Personal experiences	Indirect Human Information History, science, testimony

Therefore, we can categorize information based on our relationship to the data on which our knowledge of it is based. For example, some information (like touching a hot stove) comes to us directly, through our own physical senses or personal experience, resulting in direct knowledge. However, most of our information is obtained indirectly through testimony provided by someone else, like Scripture or history, which is indirect knowledge. ^[35]

The absence of direct knowledge in indirect knowledge is expressed in such biblical statements as “We live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7) or “faith is being . . . certain of what we do not see” (Heb 11:1). This is why all belief in God is based on indirect knowledge because “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). ^[36] Here, of course, we see that an important term used to refer to beliefs based on indirect knowledge is “faith.”

The philosophical difference between indirect knowledge (faith) and direct knowledge can be illustrated in how different Christians have come to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Apostle John writes:

That which was from the beginning [Christ], which we have heard [directly, personally], which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it. . . . We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. (1 John 1:1-3)

John and the disciples had direct divine knowledge of Christ because they physically heard, saw, and touched Him. Therefore, their belief in His existence was not by faith. However, any Christian reading this has come to believe in Christ through a testimony from a person, Scripture, or similar source. Our belief in Christ is not currently on the basis of direct knowledge, but rather indirect divine knowledge, which is a reminder of how wonderful the coming Kingdom will be when faith is no longer needed (cf. Rom 8:24-25; 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 5:6-10).

However, before we start thinking we are at some sort of disadvantage to the Apostle John, we should remember what Christ said to Thomas concerning the same difference between direct knowledge and indirect knowledge: “Because you [Thomas] have seen Me, you have believed [by direct knowledge]; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed [by indirect knowledge (faith)]” (John 20:29; cf. Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet 1:3-8). It was not indirect knowledge that Thomas had concerning Christ’s resurrection from the dead, but he believed it because of what he had physically seen. We have not seen the resurrected Christ, and therefore our belief is one of indirect knowledge. ^[37] And it is through this type of knowledge that we know most of what we know, from both God and humans. ^[38]

The same can be said of the divine revelation of the Gospel or Scripture. A very, very few people have received this knowledge directly from God. For example, the Apostle Paul writes:

I want you to know, brothers, that the Gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11)

Not only is this a classic statement illustrating the distinction between divine revelation and human information, but also indirect and direct knowledge. While the source of Paul’s Gospel message was uniquely direct divine revelation, the vast majority of people have learned the Gospel from other people, not God personally. In fact, it is very important in our day to point out that such direct divine revelation from God, is extremely rare in all of human experience on Earth. While claims to miracles and divine revelations abound, God’s way is to more indirectly provide divine revelation to His people on earth, so that the faith, which so pleases God, abounds. ^[39]

Pastoral Practices

• Are you content to have only the divine revelation of Scripture? So many today expect, demand, depend on, and falsely claim extra-biblical sources of God speaking today. If this is your inclination as well, we would encourage you to carefully study the validity of such popular notions as what we refer to as prophetism and mega mysticism. Such perspectives suggest God would add to the direction and commands He has given in Scripture, which is a very serious claim to make. For further study see sections in this endnote. ^[40]

D) The Process of Believing: Human Research

As we discuss more thoroughly elsewhere, some have helpfully suggested that human knowledge and beliefs are established in much the same way as a computer gains information. ^[41] To an extent, this is true. In the case of a computer, data is entered into the operating system where it is processed and then sent to memory to be accessed as needed. Likewise, all different sorts of divine and human data sources provide information to our minds where it is interpreted, evaluated, and the results stored, resulting in knowledge. ^[42] And like computers, our knowledge is only as good as the data we are provided. ^[43]

Admittedly, even our simple model may at first seem rather complex. But understand that it is illustrating a very complex process. ^[44] Several of the elements in it will be discussed in subsequent chapters of Knowing Our God (KOG), although we can briefly summarize here what we believe to be a biblical model of epistemology (or how we know what we know). In general, we would suggest that we know things through data sources that are processed by our God-given reasoning faculties, which result in beliefs which have varying levels of accuracy and certainty.

As noted above, the sources of our data generally fall into two categories: divine and human. Nonetheless, no matter what the source, all data needs to be mentally received, interpreted, evaluated, and applied in order to become knowledge, and subsequently a belief of any kind. This includes even direct divine revelation such as the Apostles experienced, for even they could not have known or believed what God told them without their God-given reasoning faculties operating. This is because, as we discuss elsewhere, all meaningful language and communication involving humans requires human reasoning. ^[45] We refer to this process of reasoning in order to gain any knowledge humans have as human research. ^[46]

It is important at this point to recognize that divine revelation in itself is not necessarily sufficient to communicate all that God desires to. In other words, God’s intention is that revelations of His ways and will become a source of reasoning or human research in order to properly understand and apply them. For example, God’s act of Creation is a divine revelation of “His eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20). But the mere existence of Creation is not enough to communicate God’s intended message, people must properly receive and process that revelation through human research.

Many theologians use the term “reason” as the antithesis of “revelation,” being essentially synonymous with what we refer to as human information and a source of data. However, human reason is best understood as a faculty and process by which all data becomes knowledge. Therefore, the common antithesis between “revelation” and “reason” is misleading as human reason is just as necessary in processing divine revelation as it is human information. ^[47]

Accordingly, even the Apostle points out that the reason people are “without excuse” for not understanding the message of Creation is that they have “seen” it (Rom 1:20), suggesting a process of reasoning. Also, in order to make our point, it can be noted that a person who has been blind from birth cannot personally conduct the reasoning needed to observe and interpret the revelation of Creation, and unless they would believe the testimony of others, the message would be lost to them. Finally, more detailed human research of Creation (i.e. science) serves to amplify and enhance the revelation of Creation as discoveries reveal more of the “power” and “nature” of the Creator.

Likewise, Scripture is a divine revelation of God’s ways and will, but God does not directly apply its meaning to our minds apart from any effort of our own. On the contrary, it must be read and interpreted by human reason. ^[48] Therefore, knowledge of the truth contained in Scripture comes through human research, and the most important kind of research. We see again, then, that a completed divine revelation (i.e. Creation, Scripture) becomes an object of human research (i.e. science, theology) in order to gain knowledge of God, or anything else.

At this point, however, we can point out the limits of such human research apart from divine revelation. For example, scientists can rightly tell us that an Intelligence of some sort has created the intricate Universe, but without researching the divine revelation of Scripture, they cannot know the identity of the Creator. It is in Scripture that we learn “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth” (Gen 1:1), and without human reasoning on the divine revelation contained in Scripture, we would be just as limited as the scientist about Who created the Universe.

This, of course, illustrates the importance of Scripture for better understanding other sources of divine revelation. This is why the Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) memorably referred to Scripture as “spectacles” that enable us to perceive the revelation of God better. For example, while God revealed Christ in history, it was the divine revelation recorded in Scripture that enables us to properly interpret and understand His purposes and deeds.

As Erwin Lutzer notes, “Even if historical studies [human research] can marshal impressive evidence to show that Christ died on a Roman cross, historical investigation cannot verify that He “died for our sins” as Christians believe.” ^[49] So we see that, contrary to rationalists ^[50] and humanists, even our best human reasoning will need to be augmented with divine revelation in order to obtain a more accurate understanding of important truths. And Scripture is the supreme revelation from which we must reason from in order to best conform our beliefs to reality. ^[51]

Subsequently, the reality of how we receive even divine revelation through human research obviously illustrates the importance of our God-given reason. All of the data that flows from either divine revelation or human information is received, evaluated, and interpreted by our human reason. If we will think about it for a moment, it will be agreed that everything God does to, or through us, He does to or through our mind. ^[52]

Admittedly, this God-given faculty is complex. Webster’s defines the mind as: “the complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons.” ^[53] The mind includes our reason and conscience, both of which are our God-given equipment to receive, interpret, and evaluate data that we are exposed to. This is an important point to make in a time when both reason and the mind are being disparaged even in the Church. ^[54] Accordingly, we dedicate several chapters to the relationship between God and our mind. ^[55]

This, then, is our rather simple, but hopefully helpful, model of Christian epistemology. It is a combination of divine revelation, human information, all being processed by reason through human research that make up the basic framework of how God has designed us and the world, in order for us to form the knowledge and subsequent beliefs we have.

Pastoral Practices

• The fact that the divine revelation of Scripture is not directly implanted inerrantly into our understanding reminds us of the importance of careful study. It is because proper reasoning is needed in the critical responsibility to accurately understand and teach God’s word, that the Apostle told all Teachers: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). This is our responsibility because God, by giving us a Spirit-liberated reason, has given us the ability to do so. Just not automatically, which is why we must apply ourselves to this task in order to obey this command.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father, we are so thankful for the things that you have given us absolute certainty about—the most important things really. We are grateful that you expect, and provide for us to be doubt free in the most crucial questions of our life. We pray that you would help us to grow in our certainty in those areas that we are lacking, and can gain more certainty in. And we pray that you would help us be wise, but also to trust your love and sovereignty in those areas in which we will only have adequate certainty. Finally, we thank you for the day that we will be absolutely certain about everything.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. How would you define truth?
2. How would you define knowledge?
3. How would you define belief?
4. What are the differences between divine revelation and human information?
5. What is the difference between indirect and direct knowledge?
6. Why do we suggest that “everything God does to or through us He does to or through our mind.” Would you agree or disagree?

Recommended Reading

• Chapter 2.5: Born Again Learning: Here we illustrate the relationship between revelation and research in areas of knowledge critical to the Christian.
• Chapter 2.10: A Critique of Fideism: There is a growing popularity of the idea that contradictions or “paradoxes” exist in biblical revelation. We argue here to refute this idea.

Publications & Particulars

1. John MacArthur, The Truth War (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2007), 1. ↑

2. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Frederick C. Mish, ed. (Merriam-Webster, 1986), 1268. ↑

3. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Edward N. Gross ed. abridged version, (Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 440. ↑

4. E. J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Eerdmans, 1956), 47. There is some debate over how much correspondence there is between human truth and God’s truth. This is discussed further under Presuppositionalism in section 2.12.D. ↑

5. Bruce Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology, 3 Vols. (Zondervan, 1987, 1990, 1994), I:150. ↑

6. For further discussion regarding the response of the unregenerated to the message of Creation see section 4.13.A. ↑

7. Quoted in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey (Simon & Schuster, 1989), 33. ↑

8. Ibid. By quoting the Mormon business consultant Mr. Covey, we are in no way endorsing his religion. He just does an excellent job of illustrating some aspects of biblical wisdom. ↑

9. Benjamin B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, 2 vols. (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 2:463-5. ↑

10. Roger Nicole, “The Biblical Concept of Truth” in Scripture and Truth, D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge eds. (Baker, 1992), 287. Dr. Nicole demonstrates the fact that the Bible certainly emphasizes the importance of “truth” when it uses cognates of the word 185 times in the OT [e.g. emet] and 183 times in the NT [e.g. alētheia]. This is not to mention the approximately 200 times that the Scriptures use the Hebrew “amen” (truth), including Christ’s use of the double “amen amen” no less than 25 times in the Gospel of John to introduce His statements. In addition, Christ Himself is called, “the Amen, the faithful and true witness” (Rev. 3:14), and God is called, “the God of amen (truth)” (Isa. 65:16). Dr. Nicole also demonstrates that both the Hebrew and Greek words for truth fully reflect the ideas of trustworthiness, “that which is conformed to reality in contrast to anything that would be erroneous or deceitful” (Ibid., 290-93). ↑

11. Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton University Press, 1979), 9-10, 70. ↑

12. J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007), 131-2. ↑

13. Paul Feinberg in Five Views of Apologetics, Robert Cowan, ed. (Zondervan, 2000), 168. ↑

14. Stephen Davis, Faith, Skepticism, and Evidence: An Essay in Religious Epistemology (Associated University Press, 1978), 44, 52-3. ↑

15. Webster’s, 665. ↑

16. Kathorao is used only here in the NT and literally means “to look [horao] down [kata].” A strengthened form of “seeing” would seem to be implied and is universally reflected in the translations by adding the adverb “clearly.” ↑

17. Noieo is the common Greek word for, “perceiving with the mind,” as distinct from “perception by feeling” or simply perception by sight. (W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words [Thomas Nelson, 1996], 650). Douglas Moo adds that the word “connotes an inner recognition, often without any reference to physical sight” (The Epistle to the Romans, [Eerdmans, 1996], 105, n. 65). ↑

18. John Murray interprets the use of gnontes in Romans 1:21 as “cognitive perception.” (The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans, 1959, 1965; reprint 1997], 41.)

    While the ginōskō (“to know”) word group can mean a personal and certain knowledge as discussed elsewhere (cf. section 2.6.A.2), it still primarily refers to merely understanding, not believing. Accordingly, Dr. Vine defined the verb ginōskō as “to be taking in knowledge [data], to come to know, recognize, understand,” or “to understand completely.” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words [Thomas Nelson, 1996], 346).

    Likewise, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) defines ginōskō as “know, come to know, understand, comprehend, perceive, recognize” none of which automatically implies belief of what is understood. (E. Schütz, “Knowlegde,” Colin Brown, ed., 4 vols., [Zondervan, 1986], II:392). Accordingly, we read elsewhere in the article:

    If such acknowledgment which manifests itself in [believing] living obedience is refused, the judgment of God is inevitable. The statement in Rom. 1:21 that those who had known God had become futile in their thinking must have appeared as a contradiction in terms to Hellenistic thought. . . .

    Paul, however, considered that the knowledge [i.e. real belief] of God necessarily included proper glorification and gratitude. Hence, the heathen who rejected God reduced this knowledge to mere intellectual activity [understanding], and what they considered wisdom was in fact nothing but folly (Rom. 1:22 f.). The very fact that, though the heathen undoubtedly knew God [understood], they refused him due recognition [faith, belief], is the measure of their lack of excuse (Rom. 1:19 f.; cf. also Jn. 1: 10; 1 Cor. 1: 21; Gal. 4:8. (II:399-400) ↑

19. For a discussion of how we go from knowledge to belief see chapters 6.15-16. ↑

20. This is debated by fideism which we discuss at length in chapters 2.10 and 6.12-14 (esp. ch. 12). ↑

21. Of course, philosophers have traditionally used the concepts of belief, knowledge, and faith to distinguish different aspects of our knowledge. One common distinction is a proposed difference in their perceived level of certainty, with the ideas of knowledge and faith implying greater or complete certainty, as opposed to belief, which is mere opinion or suggestion. Thus, we read in Hebrews, “faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see” (Heb 11:1). Also, theologians distinguish faith and knowledge by pointing out that the former comes through testimony, while the latter comes by personal experience. While such distinctions have their place, they also tend to unnecessarily complicate a discussion of belief. For further discussion regarding faith in particular see Book 6: Biblical Faith. ↑

22. Webster’s, 142. ↑

23. Admittedly, the NASB is unique in translating the Hebrew in this way. However, Keil and Delitzsch make a case for this rendering saying, “Most moderns (Bertheau, Zöckler, Dächsel, etc.) [translate it]: as he reckons in his soul, so is he.” (Commentary on the Old Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.com, 2000]). ↑

24. Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (NavPress, 1997), 74 ↑

25. For further discussion on the importance of beliefs in the human life see chapter 2.4. ↑

26. A. W. Tozer comp. by Warren Wiersbe, The Best of A. W. Tozer, (Baker, 1978), 84. ↑

27. Moreland, Mind, 74. ↑

28. For some helpful discussion on distinguishing minor and major biblical issues see section 3.2.C. ↑

29. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Frederick C. Mish, ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1986), 771. ↑

30. Ibid., 80. ↑

31. For further discussion of amoral decisions and their relation to God’s will see especially section 7.15.B. ↑

32. For an introduction to the vast but critical topic of divine revelation see chapter 7.1. ↑

33. For arguments suggesting that 2 Timothy 3:17 is specifically referring to ministers see section 7.10.d. ↑

34. For more discussion on the authority, supremacy, and sufficiency of Scripture see chapters 7.7-10. ↑

35. There are many different ways in which Christian theologians and philosophers refer to direct and indirect knowledge which can actually make the issue more confusing. For example, direct knowledge is often alone referred to as knowledge, and indirect knowledge as belief, two words that are normally synonymous, even in Scripture (cf. John 6:69; 17:8; 1 John 4:16).

    Similarly confusing is the myriad of additional ways in which indirect knowledge is referred to. “Faith” might be a good one, but Christian philosophers consistently use this word to refer to obtaining data from divine revelation instead of mere human testimony (see further discussion at section 6.1.B). We think it is less confusing at this point to stick with indirect knowledge and will define faith in greater detail in chapter 6.1.

    Another common way of referring to indirect knowledge is to describe such beliefs as based on authority. Virtually all of these different ways of referring to this important difference in our beliefs are used in the following explanation from B. B. Warfield, and demonstrate the confusion that can arise:

    We know what we are convinced of on the ground of perception; we believe what we are convinced of on the ground of testimony . . . “With respect to things we have seen or see,” says Augustine, “we are our own witnesses; but with respect to those we believe, we are moved to faith by other witnesses.” . . . Whatever we choose to call these two classes of convictions, these two classes of convictions unquestionably exist. . . . It is patent to all of us, that some of our convictions rest on our own rational perception of reality [i.e. direct knowledge], and that others of them rest on the authority exercised over us by tested testimony [i.e. indirect knowledge]. (“On Faith In Its Psychological Aspects,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield [Oxford University Press, 1932; Repr. 2000 by Baker), Vol. IX: 326-8). ↑

36. For further discussion regarding the apparent contradiction in the fact that Isaiah “saw the Lord” (Isa 6:1) and John’s statement that “no one has seen God,” (John 1:18) see section 4.10.B and endnotes. ↑

37. Some may interpret our use of indirect knowledge of Christ as an impersonal knowledge. However, we should not forget that Jesus Himself lives in us (cf. John 14:20). More specifically, we are distinguishing between the current nature of our knowledge of Christ, and that which the Twelve had on Earth and we will have in the coming Kingdom. ↑

38. For further discussion of indirect knowledge as it relates to human testimony and history see section 2.5.D. ↑

39. The way in which God communicates with us is a vast and controversial topic, although critical lest we are deceived. For further study see chapters listed in next endnote. ↑

40. Regarding the sufficiency of Scripture see chapters 7.7-10. Regarding prophetism see esp. chapters 9.1-3. On mega mysticism see Book 14. ↑

41. For further discussion on how our reason processes beliefs see sections 2.4.B-F; chapter 2.5; section 4.1.B; and chapters 4.3-4. ↑

42. There is some debate on how we obtain our “system software” in order to process data. For further discussion see chapter 2.8. ↑

43. However, there are many limitations to comparing ourselves to computers. For example, while a computer will rather automatically act upon the knowledge it has processed, humans will not. Therefore, it should be noticed that our model of learning relates to how we gain knowledge, not how we make decisions. This is because we do not always act according to our knowledge because other parts of our “heart” including our desires and feelings can influence our decisions and beliefs in spite of what we know. For further discussion see sections 4.5.C and 4.6.C. ↑

44. Our model is necessarily simplified as Yandall Woodfin states the obvious when he writes: “It is impossible to isolate reality into tight compartments and delineate the specific areas in consciousness where sensibility and understanding meet in the process of knowing.” (With All Your Mind: A Christian Philosophy [Abingdon, 1980], 22). ↑

45. For further discussion of the relationship between language and reasoning see section 2.4.F. ↑

46. The respected Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) describes the concept of human research when he writes:

    As sentient souls, [humans] have received organs by which they can perceive and picture the . . . world in its various relationships. By the logos (reason) inherent in them, they address the world of intelligible things and trace the logos (design) embodied in the visible realm. . . . However rich a talent for science and art may be hidden in a baby, it is nevertheless born in a state of helplessness. It depends on the “grace” of its environment. We receive food and drink, shelter and clothing, ideas and concepts, perceptions and wants from the circle in which we are born and reared. Religion also is instilled in us by our parents and caretakers. As with language, so it is with religion. The faculty of speech is something we possess at birth, but the language in which we will later express our thoughts is given us by our environment. (Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Baker, 2003), 501-2. ↑

47. For further discussion see section 4.1.B. ↑

48. Many theologians refer to the process of interpreting Scripture as illumination. For a biblical critique of this view see chapter 3.5. ↑

49. Erwin Lutzer, Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible (Moody, 1998), 55. ↑

50. For further discussion of rationalism see chapter 2.9. ↑

51. For a defense of Scripture as the supreme divine revelation see chapter 7.8. ↑

52. For further discussion of the centrality of human reason for the Christian life see chapter 2.4; 2.10; section 3.1.C; chapters 3.2-3; chapters 4.1-4; chapters 6.12-14. ↑

53. Webster’s, 755. ↑

54. See examples of the disparagement of reason and the mind in section 2.4.A.2 and chapter 2.10. ↑

55. For further on the relationship between God and our mind see sections 2.4.B-F in the next chapter. Also sections C and E in chapter 2.5. ↑