Epistemology - Tumblr Posts

How Do We Know What We Know?

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim

A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.

Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!

The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.

If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.

The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience

Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!

What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.

From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).

Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?

The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only

with the falling of the dusk.”

In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!

The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:

“All these are the work of one and the same

Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,

just as he determines.”

In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.

Conclusion

The epistemology of existentialism and phenomenology presents “experience” as a potential source of knowledge. Since testimony is considered to be a possible source of knowledge that could justify a belief, the multitudinous number of born-again testimonies down through the ages would present a case for the legitimacy of the existential experience! According to phenomenology, this knowledge may actually surpass that of science given its capacity to grasp the essence of being!

Is John MacArthur a Christian?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

MacArthur is a Reformed Protestant and a

strong proponent of expository preaching.

He has been acknowledged by Christianity

Today as one of the most influential

preachers of his time and was a frequent

guest on Larry King Live as a representative

of an evangelical Christian perspective.

— Wikipedia

——-

Is Religious Experience Unchristian?

John MacArthur typically uses exaggerated caricatures of New Testament (NT) teachings to mock and ridicule *religious existential experiences.* But isn’t religious experience the foundation of our salvation, according to the NT? Romans 8.9 (NLT) says, “remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.” So how do you get the Spirit of Christ to live in you if not through an experience? Is it based on wishful thinking? Jesus says in Jn 3.3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” But how is someone “born again”? Through a profession of faith? Absolutely not! Jesus clearly emphasizes that no one will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven simply on that basis alone. Much to their horror, those who thought they were saved will be utterly perplexed, confused, and disappointed! They will appeal and say: “Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name.” (Mt. 7.22). But Christ will ultimately reject them and say: “I never knew you” (Mt. 7.23).

So, how is one born again if not through some kind of an experience? And how does one develop a relationship with Christ if not through an experience? Jesus simply becomes an imaginary partner or a wishful thought or daydream? Is that what the NT teaches? And how do we get a new identity, according to Eph. 4.22-24? By reading the Bible? MacArthur clearly contradicts Scripture by implying that Christian salvation is not based on any “experience” at all. Yet, in Philippians 2.12 (NASB) Paul exhorts:

work out your own salvation with fear and

trembling.

Fear and trembling do not occur except in unusual circumstances that involve “experiences” of existential dread! And, according to Paul, these experiences are essential to working out one’s salvation. Yet with regard to religious experience, MacArthur says the exact opposite. In a YouTube video, he exclaims:

it’s nothing but sheer imagination, at best;

and, at worst, you are courting demons. . . .

And some people, sad to say, it’s not

enough to believe in Christ, they pursue the

paranormal, the supernatural, the mystical,

the intuitive, and they make things happen

in the mind that aren’t happening, and they

open themselves to things that do happen

from demonic sources. It’s a frightening

thing to think about.

So demonic sources can make things happen, but God can’t? In other words, he suggests that demons can make things happen in this realm, whereas God is powerless and can’t possibly compete with them. Then he added:

Why is it that people pursue that? I’ll tell you

why. Because somewhere in their theology

they have bought into the fact that it’s not

enough to have Christ. And they’re into all

these experience with angels, and so

forth.

——-

Should We Reject the Supernatural?

The problem with John MacArthur is that he doesn’t explain the process by which we “have Christ” in the first place. How exactly do we have Christ if not through an experience? He went on to say,

that’s not great faith that brings those

supernatural experiences; that’s doubt

looking for proof that fantasizes those

experiences.

So, according to John MacArthur, the supernatural signs and wonders of the NT, including the supernatural miracles of Jesus, do not involve great faith——contradicting what Jesus himself taught (Mt. 14.31)——but are rather fantasies that don’t really exist! How then does his epistemology differ from that of Liberal theology? Isn’t it one and the same? He’s basically saying that the supernatural dimension does not exist. It’s a fantasy world of imagination, at best, or the realm of the demonic world, at worst. Really? Isn’t that what the Pharisees accused Jesus of, namely, of casting out demons because “He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons”? (Mt. 12.24 NLT).

In fact, in trying to downplay and discredit visions and experiences, he will even pit Paul against Paul! He employs Paul as a mouthpiece to denigrate visions and revelations. Yet, according to Galatians 1.11-12, everything that Paul knows about Christ is EXCLUSIVELY through visions and revelations (cf. 2 Cor. 12.1-4). Besides, didn’t John of Patmos see visions and revelations that he later encoded in the Book of Revelation? Are we to conclude that he, too, was just imagining things that are not real and do not exist? Was Paul’s vision of Christ (Acts 9.3-5) equally false and imaginary? And this man is lauded and respected as a credible pastor-teacher? Listen to some of his comments that were directed to his congregation:

Now, there’s no higher plane. There is no

surpassing experience. There’s no deeper

life.

If we didn’t know who uttered these words we would easily ascribe them to a positive atheist like Michael Shermer or Richard Dawkins. Astoundingly, they were uttered by John MacArthur. This is downright false. This man has drifted away from Christianity. His epistemological position is extremely dangerous. He’s putting peoples’ salvation on the line. By contrast, here’s Jesus’ promise to those who love him (Jn 14.21):

I will love them and reveal [ἐμφανίσω]

myself to each of them.

MacArthur then diverts his listeners’ attention by attacking a straw man. He creates a false dichotomy and makes it appear as if this debate is about Christ versus experiences. Either Christ is sufficient or else you choose experiences. But that’s a red herring. On the contrary, Jesus demands regeneration, and Paul exhorts believers to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom. 12.2 NASB), not by simply reading the Bible and pretending to have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. How is Christ sufficient? Simply through reading a Book? That’s preposterous! In fact, the one thing that God wants us to do is to *experience* him. That’s the whole Bible in a nutshell!

(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/e0fETODHsoM)

——-

Is the Experience of the Holy Spirit Nonsensical?

In another video, he claims that spiritual formation——in which people seek inside themselves——is “just a lot of bunk.” He says:

digging deep in to find your spiritual core

and your spiritual center . . . is nonsense.

In other words, he’s contradicting the Word of God. Acts 2.1-4 (NLT) reads:

On the day of Pentecost all the believers

were meeting together in one place.

Suddenly, there was a sound from heaven

like the roaring of a mighty windstorm, and

it filled the house where they were sitting.

Then, what looked like flames or tongues of

fire appeared and settled on each of them.

And everyone present was filled with the

Holy Spirit and began speaking in other

languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this

ability.

——-

MacArthur’s Deism

Then he goes on to explain his own theology and soteriology, which are diametrically opposed to those of the NT. He says without flinching:

The assumption is that spiritual truth is

somewhere inside of you. And that is not

true. Spiritual truth is outside of you. It is

external to you. It is in a Book outside of

you. It is not in you. . . . You can go sit on a

rock in the middle of nowhere and think,

and you will find in you no source of divine

revelation whatsoever. Because divine

revelation is external to you. It’s external to

every human being. It’s in a book that God

wrote. And when you put the book down

and start looking into your own brain all

you’re gonna do is be led down a black

hole.

This is a deist understanding of God as a transcendent Being, wholly independent of the material universe, who is not accessible to creatures and does not personally interact with them. So, the NT teaching that the Holy Spirit “will be in you” (ἐν ὑμῖν)——in Jn 14.17, 23 (cf. Rom. 8.9), or “that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (1 Cor. 6.19)——is false? (cf. Titus 3.5; 1 Jn 2.27). This is the exact opposite of what Lk 17.21 says, namely, that the kingdom of God is within you (ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν)! So, “truth” (who is Jesus; Jn 14.6) is never inside (immanent) but always outside of every believer? Of course not! In Rev. 3.20, Jesus declares the exact opposite:

Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you

hear my voice and open the door, I will

come in [εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν].

According to MacArthur, it seems that a personal relationship with Jesus is equivalent to just reading about him in a book. So, there’s no truth outside the Bible, no experiential relationship to God, no real spiritual insight, no miracles, no supernatural world, no signs & wonders, no changes in the personality, no religious experiences, no Holy Spirit, nothing whatsoever. This is a form of deism, pure and simple: God does not intervene in the affairs of men except through a book. Not only does this view contradict Scripture, it is patently ridiculous and utterly absurd! To hear a supposed Bible teacher——who holds the attention of millions worldwide on a daily basis——saying these things is absolutely shocking, if not shameful.

——-

If Being Born Again Is Not an Experience, Is It a form of Rote Learning?

MacArthur continued:

That’s what happens when you start

trying to poke around inside of yourself for

spiritual truth when it’s all contained in

one book, and that book is external to you.

And the spiritual truth resides in that

book, if you never lived or if you never had

a thought. It’s the external truth that we

must understand, cuz there’s nothing

inside, until that truth gets in our minds.

So, he seems to suggest that “truth” gets into our minds not through the experience of regeneration but only by constant reading and repetition. In other words, he reduces Jesus’ and Paul’s spirituality to *rote learning.* So, When Paul says “put on the new self” (Eph. 4.24 NASB) or the new identity, does he mean that our personalities will radically change as we master the Biblical literature through repetition and memorization or through some sort of intellectual assent? If that were so, Christianity would be nothing more than B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism!

——-

BIBLE IDOLATRY

John MacArthur’s message seems to be that nothing happens inside of us experientially. God only speaks today through the Bible. He has made of the Bible an idol. And he has also broken the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yet he worships the Bible (aka bibliolatry)! Jesus, however, poignantly rebukes such people in John 5.39 (NLT):

You search the Scriptures because you

think they give you eternal life. But the

Scriptures point to me!

In short, according to MacArthur, the Bible has replaced God. God can no longer speak apart from or outside the Bible. Scripture also trumps Jesus. His spiritual relationship to human beings is not direct; it is indirect via the Bible. Put differently, we no longer believe in Jesus or God as realities or entities, which exist outside the Bible, with the ability to communicate and transform our lives. No! They interact with us only in and through the Bible. Therefore, we only believe in the literary “word” of God: *the Bible!* These divine beings only exist inside the Bible and not apart from it. That’s what John MacArthur seems to be saying. He’s in love with a book, not the author of that book. Outside of that book, he doesn’t seem to “know” its author. He only meets him via that book! By contrast, 1 Corinthians 4.20 (KJV) says: “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” This is what the Protestant reformation of sola scriptura has produced. But this epistemology is completely bogus, as if God is incapable of speaking to us outside the Bible. As Jesus observes: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mt. 15:8)!

——-

Conclusion

For John MacArthur, belief, not experience, is the key. Therefore, we don’t need to “experience” or “know” Jesus intimately or personally. The old saying: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34:8) need not apply. In this strange and demonically twisted scenario, the Bible is Lord!

This is the hallmark of a false teacher. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT or with Christ’s command to love God above and beyond everything else, including books (Mk 12.30). It is not sanctioned by the Scriptures. And it is neither according to God’s word nor his will. It is a form of secularism: quasi-deism coupled with liberal theology. It is a counterfeit Christianity! This view is far removed from Christian teaching. It was quite laughable to witness.

If we sum up his theology, and take it to its logical conclusion, it’s as if God & Jesus are simply *literary characters* in the Bible whose powers and abilities are confined and subject to the authors’ discretion. Accordingly, we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus; we have a personal relationship with the Bible! We don’t know God apart from the Bible. That’s MacArthur’s basic message, namely, that Christianity is not a “spiritual” but rather a “literary” religion! He reduces Apocalyptic Christianity to literature! His rejection of religious experience, and of the operations of the Holy Spirit, is analogous to paganism!

He contradicts both himself and the Bible by stating that mystical, supernatural experiences do not exist. Yet the Bible is filled with them: think of Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, John, and Jesus!

So, his teaching involves not only an unwarranted epistemology——in which real, living, divine persons become reduced to literary characters——but also a self-contradictory exegesis wherein he refutes the very teaching he espouses, namely, the supernatural world of the Bible!

My question is simply this: does John MacArthur represent authentic Christianity?

And, judging from his own statements, the answer is a resounding no!

(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/mTEm9NI17Do)

——-

Polytheism Versus Monotheism

By Biblical Researcher and Award-Winning Author, Eli Kittim

——-

The First Cause

Some Bible critics have argued that there maybe other gods in the universe. However, the Bible itself claims that there’s only one God. Now, you may see that as circular reasoning but there are also valid philosophical arguments which demonstrate that there can only be one cause to the universe, to wit, a “first cause.” Philosophy does not posit a multiplicity of first causes but rather the existence of a single, first cause, just as other theosophical and spiritual traditions have also posited a single incorporeal first cause. Let’s not forget that we’re not talking about a genus, a multiplicity of “contingent” beings, but about the source of everything, a “necessary” being that is beyond time and space and beyond being. If there were two such beings, then neither of them would be god. There can only be one maximally great being that can exist in every possible world.

——-

The Cosmological Argument

Plato (c. 427–347 BCE), in the Timaeus dialogue, posited a "demiurge" of absolute intelligence as the creator of the universe. Plotinus, a 3rd century Neoplatonist philosopher from Alexandria, claimed that the “One” transcendent absolute caused the cosmos to come into being as a result of its existence (creatio ex deo). Proclus (412–485 CE), his disciple, later clarified that “The One is God.”

Similarly, according to Aristotle, the “unmoved mover” (Gk. ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, lit. “that which moves without being moved”) or “prime mover” is the main cause (or first uncaused cause) of all the motion in the cosmos but is not itself moved or caused by any previous action or causation. Notice that the so-called “first cause” arguments do not entail multiplicity or diversity but rather unity and oneness.

In other words, nothing can come into being from nothing. Think about everything you see around you: your house, your car, your phone, your computer, your clothes, your food, your furniture, your TV, your parents, your friends, even yourself. Everything comes from something else. And the further back you go in time, in trying to unravel what caused what, the more you realize that everything came from something else. Someone or something either designed it, produced it, formed it, or gave it birth. If there were 2 gods, we would have to ask who came first? Who brought the second god into being?

However, the cosmological argument necessarily presupposes a single cause, which itself was never caused, namely, a timeless being, capable of creating everything (i.e. all contingent beings). Otherwise, if there was no first “unmoved mover,” there would be an infinite regress of causal dependency ad infinitum. This “first cause” can therefore be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate not only that there must be a “necessary” being that designed and sustained the universe, but also that there can only be “one” such being!

——-

The One God of the Old Testament

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony. Thus, divine revelation, which was subsequently transcribed or inscripturated, would certainly qualify as “testimony.”

There are multiple passages in both Testaments of the Bible where God declares to be without a counterpart: without an equal. Similar to the “Absolute Being” of philosophy which is logically inferred as a single, first cause, the Old Testament clearly affirms the existence of only one God. So, the uniqueness of a single God can also be attested by Divine Revelation. Scripture is therefore a witness to the reality of God’s existence as being unparalleled and unique. For example, in Isaiah 44.6-7 (NRSV), God declares that there are no other gods in the universe except him. He exclaims:

I am the first and I am the last; besides me

there is no god. Who is like me? Let them

proclaim it, let them declare and set it forth

before me.

In Isaiah 42.8, God states that he doesn’t share his glory with anyone. He alone is God without equal or rival:

I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I

give to no other, nor my praise to idols.

Moreover, in Isaiah 43.10-11, God declares categorically and unequivocally that there were no gods formed before him, nor will there be any gods formed after him:

Before me no god was formed, nor shall

there be any after me. I, I am the Lord, and

besides me there is no savior.

This truth is reiterated several times in Isaiah 45.18, 21:

For thus says the Lord, who created the

heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth

and made it (he established it; he did not

create it a chaos, he formed it to be

inhabited!): I am the Lord, and there is no

other.

There is no other god besides me, a

righteous God and a Savior; there is no one

besides me.

This assertion, of course, implies that there are not multiple gods that receive many different forms of religious worship but rather a single Godhead sans equal.

In Isaiah 46.9-10, God sets a unique standard against which all other theories are measured, namely, the fulfillment of prophecy. That is to say, no one else can predict the future except God himself:

I am God, and there is no other; I am God,

and there is no one like me, declaring the

end from the beginning and from ancient

times things not yet done.

Similarly, 2 Sam. 7.22 seems to attest to the truth of God’s oneness by way of divine revelation (cf. 2 Pet 1.18):

You are great, O Lord God; for there is no

one like you, and there is no God besides

you, according to all that we have heard

with our ears.

——-

The One God of the New Testament

When we turn to the Christian scriptures, we find the exact same theme concerning one God who reigns supreme above humanity and the heavenly host. At no point in Scripture is there any hint that there are other gods that exist beside the God of the Old and New Testaments. John 17.3, for instance, brings to bear the authority of Scripture on the matter by calling the source of all creation “the only true God.” Critics of the Trinity (who view it as polytheistic) should be rebuffed because in the Johannine gospel Jesus clearly establishes that there’s *one essence* between himself and God. He proclaims, “The Father and I are one” (10.30).

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God, but three coeternal, consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios). Paul the apostle also knows through direct revelations that “God is one” (Rom. 3.30). Paul understands that the Triune God is not equivalent to multiple gods but is rather a *monotheistic supreme deity* (1 Cor. 8.6 emphasis added):

there is ONE GOD, the Father, from whom

are all things and for whom we exist, and

one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are

all things and through whom we exist.

Colossians 1.15-16 explains that no other god or gods created the universe except God the Father (the source) through his Son (who is his image or reflection):

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God,

the firstborn of all creation; for in him all

things in heaven and on earth were created,

things visible and invisible, whether thrones

or dominions or rulers or powers—all things

have been created through him and for him.

1 Tim. 2.5 basically reiterates the exact same concept of the ONE GOD, not as 2 or 3 separate beings, but as ONE BEING (in multiple persons):

For there is one God; there is also one

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human.

Similarly, Hebrews 1.2-3 reveals the exact same *truth* regarding a single God and his Son, “through whom he also created the worlds”:

in these last days he [God] has spoken to

us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all

things, through whom he also created the

worlds. He [Christ] is the reflection of God's

glory and the exact imprint of God's very

being, and he sustains all things by his

powerful word.

——-

God is Truth & Does Not Lie

The Bible repeatedly reminds us that God is truth, holiness, and veritable love itself, and therefore he does not lie. The Old Testament verifies his truthfulness by instructing us to imitate his holiness. Exodus 20.16 says,

You shall not bear false witness against

your neighbor.

Proverbs 12.22 reads:

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,

but those who act faithfully are his delight.

What is more, there are many Bible passages that demonstrate unlimited confidence in God’s honesty, transparency, and accountability. Titus 1.1-2 (emphasis added) is such a passage:

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of

Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of

God's elect and the knowledge of the truth

that is in accordance with godliness, in the

hope of eternal life that God, WHO NEVER

LIES, promised before the ages began—

In John 17.17 (ESV), Jesus himself says to God the Father:

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is

truth.

This is reminiscent of Isaiah 65.16 (ESV) which calls the creator, “the God of truth.” He is similarly acknowledged in Deuteronomy 32.4 (NKJV) as “A God of truth and without injustice.”

In Numbers 23.19 (NRSV), God is further attested as a higher-being whose good character precludes deception and lies:

God is not a human being, that he should

lie, or a mortal, that he should change his

mind. Has he promised, and will he not do

it?

Moreover, the doctrine of the Immutability of God describes an attribute of God which prevents him from changing his will or character. It implies that He will make good on all of his promises. Hebrews 6:18 (ICB) puts it thusly:

These two things cannot change. God

cannot lie when he makes a promise, and

he cannot lie when he makes an oath.

These things encourage us who came to

God for safety. They give us strength to

hold on to the hope we have been given.

Conclusion

This life has no guarantees. So, from an interdisciplinary perspective, when there are multiple lines of evidence concerning one God——coupled with cases abounding in the “religious-experience literature” down through the ages——the *testimony* becomes rather robust and trustworthy! In other words, the religious testimony is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge. And this global testimony——which goes far beyond the Judeo-Christian Bible and includes other world religions——indicates that only one God exists. If we add the philosophical arguments that also assert a first cause regarding everything that has been created in the cosmos, then we can safely say that there can only be one God that is responsible for creating and sustaining the universe!

——-

Surrender is worse than defeat dear artist; I claim victory with a single question. But alas, unanswered, loss besets us both: I end as I began.

If truth is undesputable, what does it mean "to know?" How is "knowing" different from "believing with all your certainty."

Ma'm/Sir/Esteem individual, i just draw comics