There's Knowing and then There's Knowing

Regarding knowledge, what is the difference between believers and unbelievers?  Hear Owen, who needs to be heard, in my judgment, in our time, in our context, because I'm not sure we get this.  (By the way, the quotation follows working through many texts; Owen is not driven by philosophy but by Scripture!)

"The difference between believers and unbelievers as to knowledge is not so much in the matter of their knowledge as in the manner of knowing.  Unbelievers, some of them, may know more and be able to say more of God, his perfections, and his will, than many believers; but they know nothing as they ought, nothing in a right manner, nothing spiritually and savingly, nothing with a holy, heavenly light.  The excellency of a believer is, not that he hath a large apprehension of things, but that what he doth apprehend, which perhaps may be very little, he sees it in the light of the Spirit of God, in a saving, soul-transforming light; and this is that which gives us communion with God, and not prying thoughts or curious-raised notions" (John Owen, Works, vol. 6, p.69).

This needs to be recalled especially by those who study a lot or those who make a living by studying.

Tom Wright, Toddlers, and Epistemology

N. T. Wright's first volume of a projected six-volume work called The New Testament and the People of God is organized in five parts.  Part I is the introduction and deals with Christian origins and the New Testament.  Part II is entitled "Tools for the Task."  In it Wright discusses four areas: first, knowledge and its problems and varieties; second, literature, story, and the articulation of worldviews; third, history and the first century; and fourth, theology, authority, and the New Testament.  Part III is labeled "First-Century Judaism within the Greco-Roman World," Part IV "The First Christian Century," and Part V "Conclusion." 

Thus far I've only gotten into the front end of Part II, and it is proving to be fruitful and stimulating reading.  Wright writes a lot of sensible and salutary stuff, but I'm left feeling a little like his discussions are (perhaps) a wee bit too controlled by his and related academic disciplines.  I may be able to say more on this in a later post, particularly with regard to epistemology.  But I have to see first how Wright develops the epistemology that undergirds the Christian worldview for which he contends.  And I want to acknowledge lickety-split that any reflections and critique that I offer are admittedly from the standpoint of a toddler standing in awe with wonder at a father's understanding of the world round about.  But toddlers still ask questions like, "But what about this, daddy?  And, why do you say that?"