Re: The wee people

Dave Siemens wrote:

"...I take
seriously the statement that those who come to God must _believe_ that he
is, not know. Knowledge of God's being and acts is beyond our finite capacity...."

Many New Testament statements support the idea that people can know God. In fact, many of these statements imply that all who accept Christ have such knowledge. Examples (from NIV): I John 3:24: "...And this is how we know that he lives in us: we know it by the Spirit he gave us." I John 4:13: "We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit." Acts 19:2: "'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' They answered, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'" Such biblical statements often imply that the knowledge is conscious, that a person is conscious of the indwelling Spirit.

Still, many Christians profess no such conscious knowledge of God. To reconcile this fact with my own conscious experiences of God and the biblical statements, I do not assert that such people are not Christian, but I have come to believe instead that knowledge of God for them is subliminal.

From experience I know that knowledge of God is highly variable. It is possible to know God vividly and unmistakably, but this is not the normal state. Most of the time God is in the background, barely perceptible. This is especially true when people are in positions where they must deal with mundane details of life and work.

What I have found is that knowing God vividly at some point can enable a person to recognize God when he is barely perceptible. On the other hand, if one has never come to know God vividly, it is understandable that such a person would be unable to recognize him most or all of the time. This does not mean that the knowledge does not exist, it just means that it is not recognized.

It is true that, in my experience, knowing God consciously does not convey detailed factual information about him--despite John 16:12-15. However, it decidedly conveys the fact of his existence. If I had never had conscious knowledge of God so vivid that it remains unmistakable in my mind to this day, I suspect I would have stopped believing in him long ago. Because of that personal revelation, I cannot but believe in him.

I realize that this testimony does little for those who've never had conscious knowledge of God. And of course no one can independently verify what I claim. Nevertheless, I think it is important to make clear that, as the NT indicates, it is possible for people to have conscious knowledge of God.

It is possible for seekers to find.

I'll go a step further, still without offering evidence: It is possible to know firsthand that spiritual reality is not necessarily a function of physical reality.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.<mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
  To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 8:27 PM
  Subject: Re: The wee people

  On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:38:59 -0400 <glennmorton@entouch.net<mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net>> writes:
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com<mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>>
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:12:01 -0700
>
> >First, Wells' first sentence is obviously true. The second is not
> >necessarily true. A need for redemption springs just as surely from
> human
> >finitude, egoism and selfishness, poorly controlled anger, the
> whole list
> >of works of the flesh, etc., as it does from a literal Fall.
>
> Many atheists dont see the truth of what you state here, mor do they
> see the meed for redemptiom. Your statememt assumes so mamy
> previous things
>
  Your statement is relevant if we can prove to the atheist that he needs
  divine help. Since he denies the existence of God, this is more than a
  little difficult. Further, since he will take any reading which can be
  twisted to demean the deity, that it will not convince him is hardly
  relevant.

> Whether the
> >Fall is historical or no more than an explanation for the human
> state,
> >atonement is necessary. It is also necessary unless our ultimate
> >aspirations are no more than a cruel hoax.
>
> And this is precisely why your above assertion about the need for
> atonement is so presumptive. It is quite conceivable that it is all
> a cruel hoax. Given the mutually exclusive religious claims among
> the world's various religions, someone is being fooled.
>
  Seems to me that you're looking for proof where there is none. I take
  seriously the statement that those who come to God must _believe_ that he
  is, not know. Knowledge of God's being and acts is beyond our finite
  capacity.

> Why must an explanation that
> >could be understood by the ancients be historically and
> scientifically
> >true? If it has not "entered into the heart of man" (I Corinthians
> 2:9),
> >why assume that we have it all pinned down?
>
> I don't believe I used the word 'all'. As to what the ancients
> could understand, it is always with a note of condescension that we
> in the 21st century state that they were too stupid to understand
> truth, even historical truth.
>
  OK, skip the "all" as hyperbole. As to what the ancients _could_
  understand, being human, they had the same capacity as contemporary human
  beings. But they did not have the means to determine scientific matters.
  Note, for example, Jacob's technique for controlling the genetics of
  sheep, a sort of instant Lamarkism. Whether you like it or not, their
  mindset was notably different from ours. This is not a matter of
  stupidity, for they kept long narratives in mind, something that some
  contemporary tribesmen still do and modern peoples do not. But, because
  of a change in notation, children now can handle mathematical matters
  that were beyond the capacity of ancient geniuses. That doesn't make the
  ancients stupid.

> >
> >Second, although you express the common view, you are involved in
> the
> >fallacy of many questions when you ask about creation. I don't
> think
> >there is any other passage where /bara/ is taken as /creatio ex
> nihilo/.
>
> I don't think I actually said ex nihilo. You have a way of seeing
> words in sentences which I didn't write in them. You do this a lot.
>
  Like it or not, your statement about Genesis 1:1 requires production
  rather than differentiation. That's what I called you on. Don't try to
  weasel out.

> >Finally, why is the alternative to "true history" be "mush"? Seems
> to me
> >that there is also literalist mush among the products of human
> thought.
>
> Because everyone keeps saying that it wasn't meant to be true. To
> me, if it isn't true, then it isn't real.
>
  Sorry about your problem here. In contrast, I find more truth in
  Shakespeare than in most psychology texts.

> The claim that the creation accounts weren't meant to be real
> because of the talking snake, a claim made here recently is patently
> ludicrous in my opinion.
>
> Has anyone here considered the ludicrousity of rejecting the talking
> snake while accepting that 5 fish can feed 5000 and leave many
> baskets left over? Or that rejecting a talking snake while
> accepting that a man can walk on water seems a bit odd? Or that
> rejecting a talking snake while accepting that men dead 3 days can
> get up and walk around? or believing that Jesus could walk through
> solid walls, or ascend to heaven? Come on, if The latter things can
> be real, what is a little talking snake between friends?
>
>
  These are not my statements.
  Dave
Received on Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:36:57 -0800