From my reading of the following passages, it seems that Christianity does recognize at least two distinct types of knowledge of God: > [Romans 1:18-23 ESV] 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be **known about God** is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although **they knew God**, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. > [John 17:3 ESV] 3 And this is eternal life, that **they know you**, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. The passage from Romans 1 describes a knowledge of God that does not lead to salvation. In contrast, John 17 presents Jesus declaring that eternal life *is* the knowledge of God (and Jesus), a knowledge that clearly brings salvation. What kind of knowledge is Jesus referring to? Am I correct in concluding that the knowledge of God Jesus speaks of is fundamentally different from the knowledge described in Romans 1? Does Christianity indeed recognize different kinds of "knowledge of God"? If so, what are the various ways in which God can be *known* according to Christian teaching? Is there a type of "knowledge of God" that transcends merely acquiring information from books or making intellectual inferences from creation (as in Romans 1)? Is there a "spiritual" kind of knowledge of God, and how is this understood within Christian spirituality?

I’ve been grappling with a major theological question: Is it fair and just for people who died without ever hearing the gospel to be raised, judged, and condemned to hell, especially since some might have believed if they had the chance to hear it? Paul says in Romans 10:17, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," which suggests that faith is impossible without first hearing the gospel. This raises a significant issue about what happens to those who never had that opportunity. I’d like a general overview of how different Christian viewpoints address this dilemma. This seems to leave us with two possibilities: either these individuals will be raised back to life and given an opportunity to accept Jesus, or they will be judged based on an inherent, objective knowledge of good and evil that’s built into everyone’s consciousness from Adam and Eve. However, Hebrews 9:27 appears to challenge the first option, stating, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment," implying that all people—whether they heard the gospel or not—face judgment after a single life, with no second chance. Consider the people of Nineveh as an example. They didn’t have the same knowledge of God as the Jews did—with the ark of the covenant, the Ten Commandments, the tabernacle, and so on—yet this didn’t exempt them from judgment based on their actions. That’s why God sent Jonah to warn them. It seems God ensured the Ninevites heard Jonah’s message before executing judgment, even forcing Jonah to go by sending the whale to swallow him. Does this imply that those who never heard the gospel will instead be judged based on the innate knowledge of good and evil inherited from Adam and Eve, since they never heard about Jesus? This also highlights that a sense of right and wrong seems to be intuitively present in everyone, passed down from our first parents through birth. I am asking for an overview of various denominations on this topic.

After the Fall, was the protoevangelium transmitted to all men so much so that all men have knowledge of the protoevangelium even if that knowledge was distorted? Every mythology has something analogous to the protoevangelium. Also, everyone descends from Adam and Eve, so Adam would have told his offspring about the protoevangelium.

The difference between a person like me who **knows** that God exists and a person who **believes** that God exists is personal experience. For example I have experienced events in my life where mystical beings have spied on me and taken information to a remote human being in control of those beings. I applied my reasoning and logic proved that the only way someone in the US can know what I am doing in Israel is through divination or necromancy, and that otherwise a normal person wouldn't. This is how I arrived at the knowledge that mystical beings indeed exist and are able to do things normal humans wouldn't be able to. > Editor's note: Assume the reasoning above is valid for the sake of answering the question. The Bible says that without faith we do not please God *Hebrew 11:6* >And without faith it is impossible to please God," meaning that in order to be pleasing to God, one must have faith in Him Does that mean a person who **knows** instead of **believes** is in violation of that verse?

[Leonard Susskind - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind) : > Leonard Susskind (/ˈsʌskɪnd/; born June 16, 1940) is an American theoretical physicist, Professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University and founding director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests are string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an associate member of the faculty of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and a distinguished professor of the Korea Institute for Advanced Study. Susskind was interviewed for the program [Closer to Truth](https://closertotruth.com/video/susle-002/?referrer=8041) , where he explained his reasons for *agnosticism* regarding the question of God’s existence. The video lasts 7 minutes (you need to click on the *Long Video* option in the *FORMATS* section), but below is my attempt to summarize the essence of his reasons for being agnostic: > Susskind is agnostic about God because, if God exists, He remains hidden behind a metaphorical "curtain" of knowledge. In front of this curtain lies all the scientific understanding we have accumulated from studying nature, while behind it are open questions we have yet to answer—such as the origin of the universe, what happened before the Big Bang, and so forth. Susskind believes we currently have no way to investigate these mysteries, including the concept of God. For him, God is a hypothesis that cannot be confirmed or falsified by any known scientific means. Since the question of God remains undecidable and beyond our current ways of acquiring knowledge, Susskind remains agnostic. Are there Christian responses to this agnostic perspective, which views God as a mysterious hypothesis hidden "behind a curtain" and beyond the reach of scientific investigation? What might Christians suggest to someone like Susskind, a theoretical physicist, as a meaningful way to "investigate" God beyond the limits of scientific inquiry?

I am someone who has only recently converted to Christianity, and I came upon a troubling point. If it is a sin to have other gods above God, then how does He feel about countries where everyone has a religion different from it? Is that entire country just doomed for hell, or is there an allowance made for those people with no knowledge of Christianity?

I believe that Christians in general would say that knowledge of God comes from the Spirit. (There is Scripture to back this up, though I don't have the exact verses handy; if someone wants to edit them in, please feel free.) Scripture also teaches that knowledge of the Father comes via the Son. (Some sects are adamant that knowledge of the Father can *only* come via the Son.) The (Western version of the) Nicene Creed states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son". The Spirit comes from the Father and the Son; therefore, what comes from the Spirit also comes from the Father and the Son. However, Eastern Orthodoxy rejects [the "filioque"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) , insisting that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Does this mean that knowledge of God can come *apart* from the Son? (I am looking specifically for **Eastern Orthodox** responses.)

I believe that after years of church going, one knows enough. Action is therefore key. Love and serve others as you would the Lord. That is my current stance. To me (protestant), pastors are historians. Once you know the ebbs and flows of the Bible, all the rest is reminding. Which is a good thing. Nonetheless, it is not enough, one must act. Love and serve. Am I wrong? I do value church, but I have Church. So, is there a point where going to church to learn is enough? I am guessing that church is more of a community of people striving for the same ideal. Refining oneself to love and serve better others as one would the Lord.

I have rewritten my question a few times because I had difficulties dealing with the definition of omniscience. Originally I wanted to know the difference between the concept of omniscience from a logical point of view with the view of the bible. However, I noticed that defining omniscience from a logical or philosophical point of view, although interesting, is quite a bag of worms, that I might open with a different question though. I know this could make the question difficult to answer as one might respond with: "What do you mean with omniscience then?" to which I respond with: "That is exactly the question. What is omniscience according to the Bible?". To break the cycle though, we could go for the scope/limits of God's knowledge if that helps. In this question, I am interested in the Biblical view/concept/meaning and limits of the omniscience of God. What can we actually conclude from the Bible on the nature of omniscience? In particular, I am most interested in the omniscience of God regarding the future (foreknowledge). **So for a focused phrasing of the question:** - **What is the concept/idea/meaning/nature of omniscience in the Bible?** - Are there limits to this omniscience described in the Bible? If so which are they? - Maybe the question could also be: "What does the Bible say about the scope/limit of God's knowledge?" - If the word "omniscience" is not the word that represents the biblical position with adequate precision: What would be a better word? **So a few Verses that I came across when researching omniscience in the Bible:** Hebrews 4:13 > And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. From Hebrews, I can conclude that God is seeing/is aware of every creature. The "exposed" part is a bit more abstract for me, but I think it points to the idea that humans cannot deceive God by lying or omitting information. What I cannot conclude from Hebrews yet is a total omniscience, since it does not say anything about past/future or possibilities. 1 John 3:20 > for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. So either omniscience in 1. John is focused on our heart here, meaning our inner thoughts, emotions, unconscious thoughts, and attitudes, and I would even go for other factors, like hormones. Or "everything" is referring to literally everything. Isaiah 46:10 > I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.” From Isaiah, I drew the conclusion that God knows everything that happened in the past but more importantly, what will happen in the future. Matthew 10:29-30 > Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. The omniscience in Matthew seems to be similar to the one in Hebrews, basically saying that God knows everything that is going on physically. **Edit added Bible passages (Thank you @Mark Vestal)** 1 Peter 1:2 > "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through > sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the > blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." => Here I can only conclude that God has some foreknowledge, but it's not clear to what extent. Or at least I am not sure how "Elect according" impacts the scope of Gods foreknowledge. Acts 2:22-23 > 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: => This passage is focused on Jesus and the foreknowledge of God regarding it. The question here is though if that was God's foreknowledge or plan. Are there verses that I missed? In Reference to the previous questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2003/how-do-christians-reconcile-gods-omnipotence-with-his-omniscience The Answers here are focusing a lot on omnipotence instead of omniscience. - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2643/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-gods-omnipotence-and-omniscience Here there are more biblical passages quotes for omniscience. However, I am asking for a biblical-based description of omniscience. - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8242/what-is-meant-by-god-is-omnipotent/8262#8262 features a great answer regarding omnipotence compared to the term "almighty". This answer might have implications for omniscience, but it is still focused on omnipotence nevertheless. - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97651/why-make-an-effort-to-get-saved-if-my-life-is-pre-destined-by-god While the description of Matthew (Author of the top answer) of God being beyond time might work intuitively I am again more interested in the biblical view/basis of it. - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83747/which-verses-in-the-bible-say-that-god-is-omniscient Another great answer for more passages. However, it also features a defence against Open Theism that includes a lot of scripture, which comes to the conclusion that God has "exhaustive knowledge of the future". **Differences in denominations:** Just to make sure that this factor does not close this question as I don't know if there are denominational differences that are significant enough to warrant a closing of the question: The question focuses specifically on what can be concluded from the Bible. I even made the mistake of opening the question on Biblical-Hermeneutics.SE because of that focus. But I will always cherish the perspective of any denomination, so if there are differences I am interested in reading about them.

At one extreme, atheists and agnostics assert that either God doesn't exist or, at best, He has concealed Himself exceptionally well, rendering Himself imperceptible and undetectable ([source](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/)) . Conversely, at the opposite end of the spectrum, Christian mystics make remarkable claims, such as experiencing guided tours of Heaven or Hell ([source](https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Revelation-Heaven-Mary-Baxter/dp/0883685248) ; [source](https://www.amazon.com/23-Minutes-Hell-Story-Torment-ebook/dp/B004TGZEQG/)) , being miraculously freed from heavily guarded prisons ([source](https://www.amazon.com/Heavenly-Man-Paul-Hattaway-ebook/dp/B004SBF7OQ)) , or being called to a revivalist ministry marked by signs and wonders ([source](https://www.amazon.com/Diary-Signs-Wonders-Maria-Woodworth-Etter-ebook/dp/B005FHXYHE/)) . Considering these extreme cases (in both directions), it appears that there must be intermediate degrees between these two extremes, forming a spectrum. Which Christian denominations believe in varying degrees of personal knowledge and experience of God? Among those, which ones believe it is possible to navigate this spectrum, moving from the lowest levels to the highest, and how?

My question is motivated by Eleonore Stump's video [Can Philosophy of Religion Find God?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Qa1gAj7zY) , suggested by this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100465/61679) . In the video, Stump elaborates on how philosophy of religion can be helpful in understanding facts about God, likening it to acquiring biographical information about a third person, from a rather distant perspective. This stands in sharp contrast with someone who possesses direct, intimate, one-on-one experiential knowledge of a person. [Some would even argue that God's existence can be established rationally using reason alone](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679) , which is a point of contention, but even if we concede it, knowing that God exists intellectually is unlikely to be the same as knowing God personally. What are Christian guidelines for making the transition from "knowing about God" to "knowing God"? --- **Note**: Having an intimate experiential knowledge of God resonates strongly with *Christian mysticism*, by my lights (see [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98050/61679) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98040/61679)) . However, I acknowledge my potential bias in this matter and remain receptive to insights from various Christian traditions, which might suggest different approaches to knowing God personally. Considering this, perhaps transforming this question into an overview of different viewpoints would be beneficial?

*Note*: For context, please see my recently asked question [*Can Reformed Epistemology be considered a special variant of mysticism?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/109913/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange. It includes many useful references and extensive quotes. --- In essence, [Reformed Epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology) , primarily expounded by Alvin Plantinga, posits that humans can experientially know God in a *properly basic* manner, through some sort of built-in spiritual sense or [*sensus divinitatis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_divinitatis) , akin to how we form basic beliefs about the external world through the conventional five physical senses: touch, smell, taste, hearing, and sight. William Lane Craig, building on Plantinga's work, further specifies that this direct experiential knowledge of God occurs in Christians through the *inner witness of the Holy Spirit*. In a clarifying [3-minute video clip](https://youtu.be/cC3q3qYIhdI) , Craig elaborates on and defends this notion in a debate with an atheist. (I recommend watching the video.) Interestingly, the experiential nature of knowing God proposed by Reformed Epistemology bears resemblance to the knowledge-granting aspect of mystical experiences as described in [mysticism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/) . I'll quote a few paragraphs from that article to clarify what I'm talking about: > Under the influence of William James’ *Varieties of Religious Experience*, philosophical interest in mysticism has heavily focused on **distinctive, allegedly knowledge-granting “mystical experiences.”** Philosophers have dealt with such topics as the classification of mystical experiences, their nature, to what extent mystical experiences are conditioned by a mystic’s language and culture, and whether mystical experiences furnish evidence for the truth of mystical claims. > A more inclusive definition of “mystical experience” is: > >> A purportedly nonsensory awareness or a nonstructured sensory experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of ordinary sense-perception structured by mental conceptions, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection. “Experience,” “consciousness,” and “awareness” are notoriously difficult to define and will be left unanalyzed here, but the other key terms in the definition can be understood as follows: > > 1. “Purportedly” allows the definition to be accepted without necessarily accepting that mystics ever really do experience realities or states of affairs in the way they described. > > 2. “Nonsenory awareness” includes content of a kind not appropriate to sense-perception, somatosensory modalities (including the means for sensing pain and body temperature, and internally sensing body, limb, organ, and visceral positions and states), or standard introspection. **Some mystics have referred to a distinct “spiritual” means of knowing appropriate only to a non-physical realm** (nous, intellectus, buddhi). A super sense-perceptual mode of experience may accompany sense-perception as in the cases of “nature mysticism” or “cosmic consciousness” (Bucke 1901), as when, for example, a person has an awareness of God while watching a setting sun. > > 3. “Nonstructured sensory experience” consists of phenomenological sensory content but lacks the conceptualization normally structuring sense-perception. > > 4. “Acquaintance” of realities in mystical experiences means the subject is putatively aware of one or more realities in a way that overcomes the normal subject/object duality: the “acquaintance” is “knowledge by participation” or “knowledge by identity” (Forman 1990, Introduction). Mystical experiences are allegedly “direct,” “unmediated” insights in that sense. > > 5. “States of affairs” include the impermanence of all reality and that God is the ground of the self. “Acquaintance” of states of affairs comes in two forms. In one, a subject is aware of either (one or more) realities on which (one or more) states of affairs supervene. **An example would be an awareness of God (a reality) affording an awareness of one’s utter dependence on God (a state of affairs)**. In its second form, acquaintance of states of affairs involves an insight directly, without supervening on acquaintance, of any reality. An example is coming to “see” the impermanence of all that exists in the phenomenal world. > > Hereafter “mystical experience” will be used in the broader sense, unless otherwise noted, not merely for unitive experiences. Correspondingly, the term “mysticism” will refer to practices, discourse, texts, institutions, and traditions associated with these experiences. The definition excludes paranormal experiences such as visions, voices, out-of-body experiences, and powers such as telepathy. All of these are “dualistic” acquaintance of subjects with objects or qualities of a kind accessible to the senses or to ordinary introspection. In the more specific context of Christianity, it's pertinent to quote the introductory paragraph of the article [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) : > Christian mysticism is the tradition of mystical practices and mystical theology within Christianity which **"concerns the preparation [of the person] for, the consciousness of, and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of God" or Divine love**. Until the sixth century the practice of what is now called mysticism was referred to by the term contemplatio, c.q. theoria, from contemplatio (Latin; Greek θεωρία, theoria), **"looking at", "gazing at", "being aware of" God or the Divine**. Christianity took up the use of both the Greek (theoria) and Latin (contemplatio, contemplation) terminology to describe various forms of prayer **and the process of coming to know God**. Thus, my question for Christians who sympathize with Reformed Epistemology: Do they see any overlap between Reformed Epistemology and Mysticism? Could the former be viewed as a special variant of the latter? Are they completely different views? Is the experience of God through the *sensus divinitatis* a special kind of mystical experience? Does the *sensus divinitatis* play any role whatsoever in mystical experiences in general?

> 1 Kings 3:5-14 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 5 In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream at night; and God > said, “Ask what you wish Me to give you.” > > Solomon’s Prayer > > 6 Then Solomon said, “You have shown great lovingkindness to Your > servant David my father, according as he walked before You in [a]truth > and righteousness and uprightness of heart toward You; and You have > reserved for him this great lovingkindness, that You have given him a > son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. 7 Now, O Lord my God, You > have made Your servant king in place of my father David, yet I am but > a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in. 8 Your servant > is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen, a great people > who are too many to be numbered or counted. **9 So give Your servant > [c]an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good > and evil. For who is able to judge this [d]great people of Yours?”** > > > > God’s Answer > > **10 [e]It was pleasing in the sight of the Lord that Solomon had asked > this thing. 11 God said to him, “Because you have asked this thing and > have not asked for yourself [f]long life, nor have asked riches for > yourself, nor have you asked for the life of your enemies, but have > asked for yourself [g]discernment to understand justice, 12 behold, I > have done according to your words. Behold, I have given you a wise and > discerning heart, so that there has been no one like you before you, > nor shall one like you arise after you.** 13 I have also given you what > you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that there will not be > any among the kings like you all your days. 14 If you walk in My ways, > keeping My statutes and commandments, as your father David walked, > then I will prolong your days.” > > 1 Kings 11:1-13 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Solomon Turns from God > > **11 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter > of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 > from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of > Israel, “You shall not [a]associate with them, nor shall they > associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after > their gods.”** Solomon held fast to these in love. 3 He had seven > hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives > turned his heart away. 4 For when Solomon was old, his wives turned > his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not [c]wholly > devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had > been. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians > and after [d]Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. 6 Solomon > did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the > Lord fully, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high > place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which > is [e]east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the > sons of Ammon. 8 Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who > burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. > > > > **9 Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned > away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, > 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go > after other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord had commanded. > 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Because [f]you have done this, and > you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded > you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your > servant.** 12 Nevertheless I will not do it in your days for the sake of > your father David, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 > However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one > tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of > Jerusalem which I have chosen.” Why was Solomon’s Godly Wisdom Not enough to prevent him from sinning by marrying “Non-Hebrew” women? To elaborate, if Solomon had so much Godly Wisdom then he should have been Wise enough to know that marrying “Non-Hebrew” women would be disastrous. And What should he probably have asked God for in addition to his request for Godly Wisdom that might have prevented him from sinning?

We read in Mtt 10:24-25 (NIV): The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. It is clear that Jesus is not referring to the accumulation of worldly knowledge as a parameter of greatness when he compares the student with the teacher. With abundant sources of knowledge outside the school/college, an excellent student can outplay the teacher in so far as worldly knowledge is concerned. My question therefore is: What were the parameters set by Jesus to measure greatness of a student vis-a-vis the teacher as in Mt 10:24-25? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

Matthew 24:36 >But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. ***Why doesn't Jesus know everything like his God and Father?***

There have been many attempts at [defining knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_knowledge) in philosophy. One of the most commonly used definitions is [justified true belief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_knowledge#Justified_true_belief) (JTB), which demands that a claim must be (1) true, (2) believed and (3) justified in order for a person to be said to *know* that claim. However, this definition has been widely challenged since the discovery of [Gettier problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem) , which highlight the inherent difficulties in defining what should count as *justification*. Faith has its fair share of controversy as well as a concept: > Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion". **Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant**, **while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence**. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith)) **Question** How do Christians define *knowledge* and *faith*? For example, do (some) Christians claim to "know" that God exists? If so, do (these) Christians use the JTB (*justified true belief*) definition of "knowledge", and if so, what counts as "justification"? Similarly, how do Christians define *faith*? Is *faith* defined as a special kind of *belief*? If so, in what sense? And what about the relationship between *faith* and *justification*? Is faith a belief that is *justified*? Is faith a belief that is *unjustified*? If *justified*, how is it different from *knowledge*? **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92352/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91811/50422

Lately I have been very interested in the different ways that Christianity (and religion in general) has to address all the different ways that we as mere mortal humans have to get closer to God. In the world of today, so full of superficialities and consumerism, one of the purest ways to getting into contact with God is that one of rejecting all these mundanities and live a fully spiritual life as a monk. But, of course, (at least for me) it is clear that this spiritual life can be meaningful in different senses and pursuing different aspects and connections to God and His creation. I personally have been interested in this kind of life because I think that today it is one of the purest ways of living that a Human can pursue. However, I do not like complete religious isolationism forgetting thus completely the Creation itself. I feel really attracted by those monks that at the same time that they were living a monastical life were able to make scientifically relevant contributions connecting thus with God and His Creation from an epistemological point of view. And I feel that this is a truly great thing and that monasteries should become in these days more and more a place where this kind of *spiritual* work is pursued. (Of course, being ample and open-minded about which path and knowledge one considers best suited in order to accomplish the communion with God). My point is that this communion with God might be pursued by a pure development of the knowledge that God let us have as Humans made as image of Himself. Hence the intellectual works of the monks in the previous link should be considered not as a side hobby during their monastical life but a central part of this kind of life, a part that makes them (and, by extension, the rest of Humanity because of the sharing of knowledge common in science) closer to the Creator. Thus, for example, Mendel works founding genetics should be considered as truly spiritual works carried over during his spiritual retire and in connection with God. In this sense, what I see is that monasteries could evolve more towards this direction and publicising this point of view. Nowadays, we all know that spiritual vocation is at its minimum and this is emptying many monasteries that had a great impact and enormous importance in the development of science and knowledge during previous centuries. However, pushing more into this direction could attract many young scientists that do not pursue money or fame (although pure science is not giving much of this anyway) but knowledge and quiet and noiseless (in an ample metaphorical sense that includes all the mundane distractions that keep us nowadays far form the very important things on this life) places where people live in community pursuing true knowledge in different directions and helping each other in the mundane things and tasks that God asks us to do in order to survive (like making food, cleaning, etcetera). Seeing the linked list with so many scientists that were monks and funded completely new branches of many sciences makes me think that this is effectively a way of connecting with God that it is encouraged or at least respected and tolerated during a monastical life. However, it seems to be declining in the last years. I am a mathematician and I would expect that many deep discoveries could come from monasteries where monks completely devoted to mathematics and committed towards the development of their knowledge spent their days thinking about these topics. However, I do not see this very often even though many great figures of Mathematics basically ended living like monks: I am thinking here about Grothendieck or Perelman , for example. My point of view working in Academia is that the environment of Academia where *publish or perish* is the main leitmotif feeds the development of small but progressive discoveries; and do not misinterpret me: I consider that *publish or perish* is something that Academia needs in order to evaluate who is better playing its completely necessary game for society because academicians get paid for what they do in Academia and then results are expected. At the same time that I consider thus that Academia is necessary, I see that monasteries could accomplish a complementary mission where *publish or perish* is not having a meaning and where monks devoted to knowledge could spend years without having any result just thinking and getting spiritually more involved until one point where **maybe** they come with something new that could then of course be published and shared with the world. This main difference between Academia and Monastery would be the materialism expected from their developers: nothing else than spirituality is expected from the monks because they are not paid materialistically for their work but spiritually (which from my point of view is much better) and as people in Academia are materialistically paid salaries something material in the form of a *publish or perish* environment is expected from them. I really think that both approaches are necessary for our society and thus I am not really criticising them here but just describing their different mechanisms in order to draw correctly the line that separates between them. At the end of the day not everyone can be a monk and there is people who consider science as a job to get some mundane reward in exchange (which is completely okay) but there is also people in the other side of the river where material rewards are not expected but only the spiritual one, which again reminds me of Perelman's rejection of all the money and awards. Summing up, my question is basically if these ways of connecting with God are recognised inside the any Christian church (or monastic order) and encouraged by some of these Institutions or if they are seen nowadays far from the current mission of the followers of God on Earth? Being more practical, if I go to a monastery saying that I am a mathematician and that I want to be there because I feel that I want to search my connection with God via the isolated and quiet study of the Mathematics that God created, would I be suggested to not follow the monastical life (even though I do not look for anything material) and not accepted to form part of the monastical community or would I be understood and encouraged to follow the direction that my soul aims me to pursue in order to find the closest connection with God that I feel created by Him to accomplish? I hope that you can illustrate me in order to understand better the monastical life and its surroundings. Thank for any side suggestion or correction in the comments! Or if it varies between different religions or orders, which one is the closest to this epistemological point of view. I know more about catholic monastery because that is my religious background but of course I am also interested in different points of views from other confessions.

I will ask a series of questions concerning individual spiritual gifts (pneumatika/charismata), or manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12. This second one is also about **the gift of the word (logos) of knowledge (gnosis)** (1 Cor 12:8), and it is closely related to [the first one](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14069/1407) . How did **the pioneers of the [healing revival](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healing_Revival)** (Branham/Coe/Roberts/etc) speak about this specific gift, e.g in the Magazine *The Voice of Healing* or in their sermons or testimonies?

I will ask a series of questions concerning individual spiritual gifts (pneumatika/charismata), or manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12. The first questions are about the gift of **the word (logos) of knowledge (gnosis)** (1 Cor 12:8). In most teaching in the *charismatic/neo-pentecostal* movements, this gift is about supernaturally revealed insights about specific facts, usually medical conditions. However, the Pentecostal theologian [Donald Gee](http://www.pentecostalpioneers.org/DonaldGee.html) considered this gift to be more of a "turbo-charged" (obviously not his words) natural understanding. This is from his book *Concerning Spiritual Gifts*, originally published in 1947. I highly suspect that the definition now in use arouse during the healing revival in the 50's and that Gee's view was the mainline pentecostal one before that movement. Can anyone enlighten me if I am right or wrong. Arguments from original sources are very much preferred. BTW, when I ask about the view in *early pentecostalism*, I mean the view from the leaders and teachers of the first generation (1900-1940). P.S. I am not looking for what one might consider to be the *correct* answer. I've done my exegesis homework and agree with Gordon Fee, that we simply can not know exactly what Paul originally intended. Fee says: > Most likely, it is a "Spirit utterance" of some revelatory kind... > How the content of such utterance makes *gnosis* as distinguished from > "wisdom" or "revelation", is perhaps forever lost to us. I will ask some more questions for additional aspects. 1. From *God's Empowering Presence*, Baker Academic, 1994, pages 167-168.

Hebrews 10:26 says: > 26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Some people interpret this as the idea that willfully and intentionally committing a sin after coming to Christ means you can no longer be saved. How can this be responded to biblically?