Re (4): Degrees of Knowledge

Hello Steve,

Thank you for clarifying your position. Also, please understand that no one is accusing you of being prideful nor was that ever intentionally insinuated. In much of my writing, I make fine distinctions between concepts in an effort to arrive at greater understanding; I take things apart so that when they get put back together again, we understand the whole better because we have examined its parts. My talk about pride was in regard to the fact that pursuing knowledge is not wrong, but that it can become wrong when it becomes a source of pride. Thus, there is a difference between the pursuit of knowledge—a good thing—and pride—a bad thing; in this instance, pride is the real enemy, not the pursuit of knowledge itself. Let me reiterate that I did not say—nor did I ever even think—you were being prideful. Let me also say that I did not intentionally try to hurt your feelings and if I have done so, I would ask your forgiveness.

Now then, I still do not believe that you and I are of two totally different minds here; I think that there has been a problem in our communication. Maybe we got hung up on "trigger words"—I don't really know what happened. But I will try once again to illustrate what I meant and then you can decide if you still disagree with me. This time, I am going to try to be painstakingly clear and all that I ask is that you carefully consider what I mean and if I trip up on my words here and there, try to give me the benefit of the doubt. If, after reading what I've written here, you still disagree with me, then you are welcome to say so and if nothing else, we can simply agree to disagree. But I still suspect that we really aren't saying two different things, but rather are saying the same thing in different ways and merely talking past one another in the process. I am going to ask you to use your imagination so that you can get a clear mental picture of what I am trying to say. Then, once you have seen this picture clearly, you are still welcome to disagree, but I do ask that you try to bring it into sharp focus before automatically concluding that you are not going to agree. In other words, I am asking for a fair hearing and nothing more. Okay? Now then, let me get on with it.

Conceptualize two folding tables side by side. It is important for this illustration to recognize that I am referring to two tables—not just one—and that they are SIDE BY SIDE. On the one table is engraved the word TRUTH. On the other table is engraved the words "OUR UNDERSTANDING." We will henceforth call them table A (the TRUTH table) and table B (the "OUR UNDERSTANDING" table) for short. Now in the newsletter, I first began talking about table A, which is the idea that truth is something that does in fact exist. If we were now to smash table B, would table A still be standing? Yes. Table A can exist completely apart from table B—or it can exist side by side in harmony with table B. It is completely unaffected by whatever relationship table B does or does not have with or to it. Table A is simply table A and cannot possibly be something it is not. It is not, for example, FALSEHOOD or ERROR, for neither falsehood nor error are TRUTH—in fact, falsehood and error are antithetical to truth. No, table A is what is it is: table A, plain and simple. It stands by itself, it consists only of itself, and it is not affected one way or another by table B. We now shift our focus to table B.

Now then, why do we need to look at table B at all? We are told, after all, not to lean on our own understandings but rather on the Lord. So what's the problem? If I rely on God's understanding rather than my own, who is relying on God's understanding? Me. If God reveals something to me, to whom is it revealed? Me. If God helps me to see with increasing clarity the truth and I grow in grace and wisdom, who is growing in grace and wisdom and whom is God helping to see with increasing clarity? Me. Now certainly I can and ought to share with you what I have learned. Assuming that I share with you and do so successfully, who is it that has now benefited from my sharing? You. Each of us has only ever looked out of one pair of eyeballs throughout the course of our entire lifetimes—our own.

So then, we have table B, the "OUR UNDERSTANDING" table. Table A is not me; table A is not you. We are, alas, constrained to table B. The trick, then, is getting table B to match up or align with table A. We can see that table B is not automatically connected to table A. Yet table A at least has the potentiality to be known. The problem with table B, however, is that it is a little rickety at times and has a few spots that need sanding here and there. Table B's pursuit is to come into a full knowledge of table A. In fact, table B might have even been given the grace to discover that Jesus Christ is the Truth. Yet even with this knowledge, table B is still progressing into the truth and has not yet "arrived." Table B still has some errors lurking around that will only be resolved when they are seen to be the errors that they are—when the truth exposes them as error—and table B is then set free.

Since we are finite creatures (and not the Infinite), even in the course of all eternity we will probably never stop learning and growing, for there will always be more of God to know. Table A in our limited illustration—for all illustrations are necessarily limited, else we'd simply be talking about the thing itself and have no need of illustrations—is of course God and everything that He has created. All of these created things exist because God exists—and because He has given these things their existence, they are part of His truth.

Now error can only exist as a negation of truth: a lack of truth, just as a vacuum is not a "thing" at all, but rather the absence of air. So then, if everything that exists is part of table A—the TRUTH table—then where does error enter in? Only in table B—only in the sentient creature with the capacity to choose. Error is a word that refers to our lack of UNDERSTANDING of table A but it is not table A nor will it ever be. Error is, then, simply the limitations of rickety table B, the "OUR UNDERSTANDING" table.

I think you thought I was suggesting that truth was relative, that he has his TRUTH and she has her TRUTH. But what I was suggesting is that he has his UNDERSTANDING of the truth and she has her UNDERSTANDING of the truth and that these understandings are not the same as TRUTH itself. However, to the degree that table B harmonizes with table A, then he or she can be said to have an accurate understanding of the truth.

So the real confusion is that we use the word "truth" to mean both (A) the thing that is known, as well (B) the accurate knowing of the knower. Thus, we talk about truth as referring to both table A and to table B. But table A—the thing itself—is TRUTH. Table B is only truth when it accurately corresponds to table A. Thus, with table B, I can say that I know the truth, but the TRUTH that I know is apart from my knowing it, else it couldn't be known. And if I don't know the TRUTH, then I am in error. Thus, table B is most often characterized by a mixture of truth (the little letter kind—the knowing of the big letter TRUTH) and error, for table B refers to the knowledge of the knower and not TRUTH itself. Now perhaps you would say that people are not a mixture of truth and error, but I think a casual glance around us reveals that even as Christians, we aren't always right: we don't always see clearly. Thus, our talk of truth and error is not the talk of relativity, but rather the admission of humility.

It is very important in understanding the point of the newsletter to remember that table A and table B are separate from one another: they are not the same table. Table A exists whether table B does or not; table B can only be said to be true to the degree that it corresponds to table A. Table A's TRUTH is the thing itself; table B's truth is the knowledge of Table A's TRUTH. Because knowledge relies on an imperfect, finite knower, it is sometimes faulty and results in error. Thus, table B can be characterized as a mixture of (the knowledge of) truth and error. I hope that this clarifies my own position somewhat and hopefully we will find that we don't disagree after all.

God bless,
Eric

Degrees of Knowledge and Layers of Truth

• Re(1): Degrees of Knowledge - By karen March 10, 2005 at 07:37:21 AM
  • Re(2): Degrees of Knowledge - By Eric March 10, 2005 at 10:06:11 AM
    • Re(3): Degrees of Knowledge - By Linda March 10, 2005 at 11:35:07 AM
      • Re(4): Degrees of Knowledge - By karen March 11, 2005 at 07:57:11 AM
        • Re(5): Degrees of Knowledge - By Bill March 11, 2005 at 11:18:00 AM
          • Re(6): Degrees of Knowledge - By Eric March 11, 2005 at 12:58:19 PM
            • Re(7): Degrees of Knowledge - By karen March 12, 2005 at 08:09:34 PM