Experience and Learning

Introduction

Today, both within Christendom and outside, we can hear people rant that “experience” is the best way to learn. Many preachers and writers repeatedly tell us that the best way to know God is to “experience” Him. In my college fellowship, few months ago, somebody prayed saying “Lord, we cannot know and understand Your love, we can only experience Your love.” In secular academic circles, this will manifest in the educational philosophy and teaching method. One will be told that the best way to learn is to experience the object of interaction, that is, to actually “do it” (“it” referring to the relevant activity under consideration). From various angles, this idea is repeatedly heard, and if we are not careful enough, this can be drilled into our consciousness and become a part of the way we think and behave.

In this monograph, my aim is to explain and defend the Biblical view of learning and knowledge. This will stand in stark contrast with the “experience” based philosophy espoused by many. Just because some idea is popular (either within Christendom or outside) doesn’t automatically make it rationally sound or Biblically defensible. In fact, taking into account the reasoning skills of the majority of the populace, the more popular some idea is, the more skeptical I would be about its Biblical basis and rational coherence. I say this not to promote an “elitist” attitude, but to actually state the sad state of affairs within the church. That which is supposed to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) has become a whorehouse of ideological revelry after flirting with the world’s philosophies and traditions. I say this with anguish and despair, considering the extent of damage that has been done to the Church whenever she adopted non-Biblical standards of thinking. I myself was a victim of this “experience” mentality until quite some time ago, when God sovereignly lifted me out of the epistemological quagmire and set me upon His Revelation – His Word. As you read this, I ask you, the reader, to give careful thought to what is being said, weigh your thinking in the light of God’s Word, and ask Him to bring about the necessary changes in you which would be more harmonious with His Word.

As we discuss this topic, I will briefly delve into other issues which have a bearing on the main theme. As I always say, we cannot discuss any topic in isolation. Thinking should be systematic, and if you hate systematic thinking, please realize that its time to grow up. I never said that systematic thinking is easy. You need to work out your mental faculties, and many times to the extreme, to finally arrive at the answer. Ideas are inter-related and we need to understand how they fit with each other. We need to know how the parts fit within the whole. Thus, as and when necessary, I will make short detours into other topics of relevant concern which will impinge on our discussion.

My immediate concern (relative to this article) is to edify and encourage other Christians, so I will not spend excessive time discussing what happens in secular academic circles, though that too is an important issue. So, majority of the discussion will be focused towards the state of affairs in the church, and what should be done to rectify it, so that we can better glorify God and advance His Kingdom.

We will start off by examining why many Christians are obsessed with the idea that the best way of learning is by “experience.” There is one question which is logically prior: how do we learn? (Whether by experience or any other method). This is the basic issue, which needs to be answered first. If we rephrase this question, it becomes an issue of epistemology. Epistemology deals with the most fundamental question, How do you know? When we attempt to formulate a Biblical answer to this, we need to discuss anthropology. For unless we know and understand man the way God made him, we cannot discuss about how he gains knowledge. Next, we will see the pitfalls of learning by “experience.” A brief refutation of this will follow with few examples from Scripture to show why “experience-based” learning methodology is flawed. Then, we will discuss about teaching methodology in Scripture and finally wind up by presenting the Scriptural solution to repair the damage wrought in our minds.

 

“Experience” Is The Best Teacher?

Many say that we learn about God by “experience.” The less careless among them say that the best way to know God is by experience, hopefully, assuming there are other ways to know God. By “experience,” many of them refer to the events in our life – the ups and downs, highs and lows, trials and so on. According to them, only after we “experience” all this, we will get to know God. So it goes without saying, that unless one is old and “mature” in a chronological and biological sense, one cannot know God. They limit this not just to knowledge of God, but extend it to other spiritual disciplines such as prayer and evangelism as well. We are told that the best way to learn about prayer is to actually pray. The best way to learn about evangelism is to actually go into the world and evangelize. The thrust of this idea is this: if you want to learn about something, then just go and do it. That is the way you will learn.

What all of them want is immediate results. Hence the urgency to hurry and “do it” straight away. These are the ones who are considered to be “practical” and useful for the community. Because of the obsession with immediate results, they do not pause to take time and think through what they are doing. Of course, some kind of results will be there, and similar like-minded “practical” people will appreciate that. But whether or not those results have God’s approval is a different matter altogether. The main thing common to all these people is their raving for the ends (sometimes regardless of the means) and thus, the stress on the “practical” as opposed to the “theoretical.”

In educational circles this method of “learning” (if it can be called learning in the first place!) is called the theory of “learning by doing.” The student learns a subject by doing it. The subtle suggestion here is the elimination of any intellectual information prior to application. The student is supposed to interact with the object and from that derive principles which have to be applied. The student is not given any other verbal instructions prior to this. In other words, the principles for application have to be derived from the act of application itself. As mentioned earlier, the thrust of this educational philosophy is focused on application and result, sometimes, to the extent that theory is neglected or considered irrelevant. “Theory,” according to them, is a waste of time. They find theory boring and not “creative” enough. That is why you will hear them say things like “please be practical, and not theoretical.” They want to know about something only if they can apply it and gain something out of it in their lives. As you can see, this philosophy is closely related to pragmatism. I shall discuss that later on in the article.

First, one cannot even get started on any activity without having prior knowledge of what to do or what not to do. One needs prior intellectual information in the form of propositions before he or she can get started on any activity. I am a medical student, so I will restrict myself to examples from my field. You can think of relevant examples from your discipline. If someone were to tell me to operate on a patient’s brain tumor and remove it, the last thing I will do is to first open the skull and then think about what to do next! No. First, I would go to the library and read all the relevant material related to it, review journals, search on the internet, talk with my professors and then finally enter the operation theater to operate on the patient. That is why we spend four and a half years of basic medical school training before we even start one year of internship. After that, if one wants to specialize in a particular field, it will take quite a long time, depending upon the discipline (5 to 7 years, if it is neurosurgery). Learning by doing? That would be disastrous for both the patient and doctor. The patient might end up worse than the condition he was when he came in, and the doctor might have to pay through his nose to handle the cost of malpractice.

 

The Pitfalls of Learning by Experience

If “learning by doing” is the correct method of learning, then how about calling a car mechanic to treat your headache? SO WHAT if he doesn’t know anything about the human body and its working mechanisms? After all, we learn by doing, don’t we? Let him learn how to treat you by actually treating you. We derive principles for application from application, don’t we? Why don’t you give him a chance to learn, and a chance for you to get well (or otherwise)?

If your laptop is not working, why not give it to your four year old son to fix it for you? SO WHAT if the poor kid doesn’t know about programming and computer circuits? Let him learn by doing! Don’t you want to encourage your son’s creativity in learning? Why complicate things for him by asking him to grow old and then learn theory before can apply it? Please be practical.

Lets discuss just another “common” example which will finder broader application. If you want to try out to new recipe don’t you look it up in a cookbook or download it from the internet? Oh, some of you experienced ones might disagree. “I learnt the recipe by my experience. I didn’t need any external help,” you say. Hold on. Just think a little more patiently through this. Ok, let’s grant that you are a great cook. When you add in the individual ingredients to the dish you are cooking, you already know, or at least have some idea of the necessary effect that they will produce in end product. That is, you presuppose some theory before you even start your cooking. That’s what I am trying to drive through. Before you can even get started on anything practical, you need to have prior presuppositions or propositions telling you what to do and what not to do. This applies not just to cooking, but to every activity in life. Without theory, there is nothing for you to be “practical” about.

You should at least know that upon turning the stove knob in a particular direction, there will be ignition, let alone do the cooking after that. Some of you might be dull enough to say that you learnt that also by experience. You see, you needed to know that what is in front of you is a stove in the first place; that it is used for cooking; that it has a knob; that the knob should be turned in a particular direction, and so on. Somebody had to tell you all this, before you get started with cooking. Also, you need to know why to cook, what is healthy, what is tasty and so on. For learning that you need to go and read a book or some other intellectual equivalent. If you want to doggedly hold on the indefensible “learning by doing” theory in cooking, don’t be surprised if your husband jumps out of the window someday.

The examples I have used are not anything “heavy.” I have avoided delving into any examples related with the scientific discipline, so as to keep the discussion broad for people from all walks of life. Examples do not teach in and of themselves. They merely serve to illustrate a point. You see, philosophy affects every realm of thinking, whether it is household chores, or debates about epistemological methodology. You don’t need to stick your head under a truck wheel to “experience” the event and then learn that your head will get crushed. You might not even be there to learn it later on! Likewise, one doesn’t need to sit on a barbecue grill to “experience” the event and then discover what happens to his rear end.

Some of you might be shocked by the way I write. What I have done in the above examples is to merely “apply” the “learning by doing” theory to its logical extremes in various situations. It always hits us close to home and enable us to feel the weight of the situation when we read illustrations we are familiar with. I am not being rude. I am just being “practical.” After all, all that you care about is results, right? If you are so bent on being “practical” to the exclusion of theory, this is what you will land up with. “Don’t be theoretical. Please be practical.” Sure. If that’s what you want, that’s what you will get! You can always embrace these ideas and parrot some statements because everybody around you is doing so, without even knowing what you are talking about. But, praise God! Because of His mercy and redemption, few people realize that life is not a circus show. One needs theory before he can even get started with the practical side to it. You see, saying things like “we learn by doing” might make you sound cool in front of an ignorant audience. But, in front of a rationally sound gang, you are asking for trouble.

If “learning by doing” can wreck such damage when it comes to even mundane things, just imagine the depth of damage that will be done when people apply this theory to learning about the things of God! I will discuss this later.

 

So, How Do We Learn?

Some might still say that though we do not learn solely by experience, once we have a few propositions, after applying them, we learn by experience. However, many propositions can be inferred from any experience, and which one is retained depends upon the person’s worldview. That is, the prior presuppositions will influence the next step in the reasoning process, and determine which propositions are learned subsequently. You cannot avoid presuppositions. There is prior intellectual information in the human mind, and based on that we interpret our experience. We will look into this in more detail when we brush through Biblical anthropology. There is prior intellectual equipment in the human mind. In other words, the human mind is not a tabula rasa. It is not like a blank slate on which experience writes its interpretation, but rather, there are prior presuppositions in the mind which determine the way we will interpret any experience. In fact, without prior presuppositions one cannot even begin to think, let alone make sense of “facts.”

So, if experience by itself does not furnish us with propositions, how, then, do we learn? This is no place to discuss the various theories of education in detail, but I would like to briefly mention about the educational consequences of epistemology.

Learning is about the transmission of knowledge. Teachers are supposed to impart knowledge. Teachers not only give knowledge, but they also teach a process by which it is communicated. This refers to the educational methodology. The theory of knowledge espoused by the teacher will in turn determine the methodology that is used in the classroom. No one can claim philosophical neutrality in this area. And this is not limited to what happens in the classroom. This will find its application in parenting, preaching, teaching, discipleship, evangelism and other spiritual disciplines.

Since we are Christians we cannot embrace the world’s ideas of what is wise and good when it comes to knowledge acquisition and communication. God created man and He defines and dictates how we should go about gaining knowledge about Him in the ways He has ordained for us.

Remember we are discussing “how do we learn”? When we are talking about learning, we are asking how we gain knowledge. That is, what is the method or the process by which knowledge is instilled in our mind? So, if we rephrase the question, it would be, “how do we know?” This is the realm of epistemology, and to that we will now turn.

 

How Do We Know?

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge. It is derived from two Greek words: episteme, referring to knowledge and logos referring to study. Epistemology deals with the possibility, nature, source, scope, limits of knowledge and the methods of its acquisition. This is the defining element in any worldview. The most basic question to ask anyone is “how do you know”? For unless and until the validity or truthfulness of knowledge has been established and defended, we have no reason to believe the worldview or other ideas derived from it.  

There have been three major schools of thought in the history of philosophy which have tried to assert dominance in the secular arena. These are empiricism, rationalism, and mysticism. Are these words new to you? Please read on. It won’t hurt to learn few new terms once in a while. Gordon Clark, in his book Three Types of Religious Philosophy, offers a brilliant critique of these views and presents the Biblical answer to the problem of epistemology. If you are keen on delving into the depths of this, grab that book and read it. I can’t afford to discuss in detail about these views now, since I need to stick with the main theme of the article. Plus, I am not philosopher by profession. Clark’s writing is much more rigorous and technical which will interest students of philosophy and history. His book is worth the read. However, I will briefly critique these three schools of thought.

Empiricism states that knowledge is gained from the five senses. The major proponents include Locke, Hume, Berkeley, and Kant, who were no friends of Christianity. They assumed that the human mind is blank, and that all knowledge is gained as and when we experience something with our five senses. But how do you know that all knowledge is gained from sensations? Did you get that very idea from sensations itself? And do you know that senses are reliable? Did you discover that sensations are reliable by sensations itself? Do sensations have a self-justifying epistemological nature? Where is the syllogistically constructed argument to show that knowledge is instilled in the mind from sensations?

We know that mosquitoes bite and the water running between our feet in the beach sand feels good because we experience these events. However not everybody experiences this in the same way. People who have advanced leprosy will not be able to feel either a mosquito bite or the water running through their toes. People who are blind will not be aware that it is a mosquito which bit them. A thirty year old might not feel mosquito bite with the same intensity as a newborn. People who have had a spinal cord injury might not be aware that they have legs in the first place. And some people, who have had a limb amputated, might still feel that a limb exists (phantom limb phenomenon), and feel pain in that non-existent limb!

You see, the real feeling or sensation is impossible to settle upon on because there are wide varieties of individual factors which will vary from person to person and from time to time.  You cannot “know a thing as it is” on the basis of empiricism. The scientific discipline is subject to the same pitfalls. Scientists can observe the same set of data and come up with contradictory interpretations. I will reserve a lengthier discussion on this topic when I write about the philosophy of science.

Rationalism was a bold leap from the epistemological quagmire of empiricism. It began with Descartes (“I think, therefore I am”) and was carried over by Spinoza and Leibniz. They stressed the innate, a priori (independent of experience) ability of the human mind to know truth. Though it is a relief from the futility of empiricism, a priori categories by themselves, do not guarantee the validity of knowledge. This is because non-revelational rationalism (as opposed to Revelational Rationalism, which is the Biblical position) cannot choose first principles on a legitimate basis to construct its system.  The premises are chosen on an arbitrary basis and hence the rest of the reasoning will be haphazard.

Mysticism, better called Irrationalism, is the view espoused by Soren Kierkegaard. Though he claimed to be a Christian, he said that we should affirm contradictions. “Paradox” is the heartbeat of Kierkegaard and his disciples who include Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Emil Brunner. What one believed was not important. All that mattered was the sincerity of the person’s belief. His famous illustration was that a passionate Hindu idol worshipper is closer to God than an orthodox Lutheran who has the correct theology but not enough passion. The content of belief did not matter, what mattered was the attitude of the worshipper. I wonder by what definition, Kierkegaard was even considered to be a Christian. According to the Bible, what you believe can make the difference between heaven and hell. The Bible was not a historical account anymore. It was myths and fables which had to be peeled of little by little, like the layers of an onion, until we get to the truth. This was an attempt to “demythologize” the accounts of the Bible and come up with interpretations which would be obnoxious to orthodox ears. Kierkegaard and his followers avoided logic like plague. They wanted to “curb logic,” but had to use logic in the very attempt to do so. I need not say much more about this position, except that it is anti-Christian and irrational to the core.

So, how then, does man gain knowledge about God? For answering this question, we need understand the two things we are dealing with now – man and knowledge. We need to discuss about the nature of man and the nature of knowledge. Only after that, we can discuss the process by which man gains knowledge.

 

The Image of God

The Biblical doctrine of creation states that man is made in the “image and likeness of God.” Since man is made in the “image of God,” we should discuss about God before we discuss about man. That is the logical order. Anthropology presupposes theology proper and that is way the topics are arranged in any text of systematic theology. Just because man is made in the “image of God” does not mean that he mirrors God’s attributes in every way. God is omniscient. We are not. God is omnipotent. We are not. God is eternal. We are not. We need to know about God’s attributes and which of those has limited expression in man – in other words, God’s communicable and incommunicable attributes.

The Bible begins by stating about the act of creation and the method God employed in the process. Based on just this one chapter alone, we can come to some elementary conclusions about the image of God. The first act that God does is to speak, for “In the beginning God said….” God spoke the whole of creation into existence (Genesis 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, and 26). Man was created “in the image of God” on the sixth day as the crown of all creation. Even if we do not look into the other passages in the rest of Scripture that throw light on this, we can come to some valid conclusions as to what the image is, based on the first chapter of Genesis alone.

First, we see that God spoke. We can at least expect that the image must include linguistic ability. And after God created man, He spoke to him and gave him a command – that is, words to obey (Genesis 2:16,17). This implies that Adam was created with faculties of understanding and reason, to process verbal information. He had to at least know the difference between obedience and disobedience to God’s commands. He did not learn this by experience. God instilled that in his mind when he created him.

God modeled clay and then breathed into it the breath of life, and then man became a living being – both body and spirit put together (Genesis 2:7). It is the image of God that separates us from the rest of creation. Let us look at some verses which throw further light on this:

“But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty that gives him understanding.” Job 32:8

“[God] who teaches more to us than to the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the air?” Job 35:11

“for God did not endow [the ostrich] with wisdom or give her a share of good sense.” Job 39:17

Thus, the “breath of the Almighty” is what gives man understanding, “teaches” him more and makes him “wiser” than animals. He was given “wisdom” and “good sense” as opposed to the Ostrich which was not endowed with these. Hence, it is not an exaggeration to say that the image of God refers to a rational mind. Some will say that the “image of God” refers to morality. But, what they fail to notice is that man is moral precisely because he is rational. Let me explain.

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life. They transgressed and Fall continued. Now for Adam and Eve to obey God, the needed to understand His commands in the first place. They needed to understand what is good and what is evil. They needed to discern the difference between obeying God and disobeying Him. Now all of that is a matter of rational thinking. In other words, morality presupposes rationality.

We don’t call a dog immoral because it mates with more than one female dog during mating season. We don’t speak about righteous cows or wicked horses. Animals are not moral because they are not rational. Moral judgments do not apply to animals because they are not rational. They cannot understand the commands of God, which is why they cannot obey them. On the other hand, man is a rational being. He can understand the commands of God, and is expected to obey them. Refusal to do so constitutes sin. Thus, in the most basic essence, sin is a lapse in rationality. And this is what happened during the Fall. The “image of God” was not destroyed, but distorted.

Since then, man’s ability to think correctly has been greatly hampered. This is referred to as the “noetic effects of sin.” He cannot think correctly about God, though God has made such knowledge clear to him, as explained in Romans 1:18-32. Men suppress the truth by their wickedness. God had already made things plain to them. Since creation, God’s divine attributes have clearly seen so that men who refuse to acknowledge God are without excuse. Their “thinking” was futile and their “foolish hearts” were darkened. They deluded themselves to be wise, when in fact, they were actually fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped created things rather than the Creator. Also, their rejection of the knowledge of God has caused them to indulge in reprehensive behavior which is morally deviant, violating God’s ontological status for sexuality.

Sin’s effect on the mind has been comprehensive. It has affected his whole thinking. Theologians call this “total depravity.” Before redemption, man is in spiritual darkness. “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Because of this, he cannot think correctly about God, even though God has revealed true propositions to sinful man in his mind. This is called general revelation, because this is given to all men at all times, regardless of geographical and cultural boundaries. Psalm 19 and Romans 1 illustrate this point. God’s handiwork is seen in creation. Some people can try to smuggle in an empirical interpretation of this passage. They say that man can “see” God in nature. We earlier saw the futility of empiricism. Rather, the correct interpretation is that God has given the necessary presuppositions to man, so that when he sees God’s creation the appropriate response should be worship.

But this is not the case. Because of their wickedness, men deliberately suppress this knowledge and practice abominable things, thus inviting further divine judgment upon themselves. Thus, general revelation in itself does not have a salvific purpose. To attain redemption, man needs special revelation, that is, propositional content from the Bible which gives true statements about God, man, sin, salvation, and judgment.

Thus, as long as man is in this state of spiritual blindness, he cannot understand and believe true propositions about God. Ephesians 4:17-19 describes the spiritual state of man before conversion. Unbelievers live in the “futility of their thinking,” “darkened in understanding,” and separated from the life of God because of the “ignorance” that is in them because of their hardened hearts. Unbelievers are the way they are because they don’t think correctly, that is, Biblically, about God. And the cure to this also targets the mind. So, when God grants repentance, people are led to “a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25).

Only Christ can lift the sinner out of the epistemological abyss and grant him “the light of the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). In Ephesians 4:23-24, we are told to be “made new in the attitude of our minds.” So, to not be like the unbelievers, we must no longer think we way we used to do, before our conversion. We have to put on the new self which is being “renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Colossians 3:10).

Can you see the Scripture’s emphasis on defining the “spiritual life” in terms of intellect? Just because something is “spiritual” doesn’t automatically mean that it is mystical, or something esoteric. The Biblical model of spirituality is centered on the mind, and this should be the target in evangelism and discipleship. When man is born in sin, the “image of God” is in a distorted state, and at conversion, God begins to work on it restoring it gradually to conform it to the likeness of Christ.  

It takes a sovereign work of God whereby he converts sinful man’s mind and grants him faith. Since this article is not a treatise on soteriology, I cannot provide detailed exegetical arguments. Please refer any text on Reformed dogmatics (Grudem, Berkhof, Hodge, Calvin, to name a few) to understand soteriology comprehensively. God has given us everything we need for sanctification through knowledge of Him (2 Peter 1:3). The subsequent development as a Christian consists of growing in knowledge and grace (2 Peter 3:18), renewing the mind, which leads to transformation, so that we can know and do the good pleasing and perfect will of God (Romans 12:1-2).

In Psalm 32:9 God says, “Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.” Therefore, to despise rationality is to mock and insult God’s wisdom in the way He made us. If we shun knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of the things of God, we are not acting like “mature Christians” but like brute beasts which have no understanding.

 

The Biblical View of Knowledge

Now, we need to understand about the nature of knowledge. What is knowledge? What is the difference between knowledge and opinion? What is the link between knowledge and truth? Are they same or refer to something different? These are the questions that we will unwrap and answer.

Something is considered to be knowledge when the information is true. When we are talking about knowledge, there is a cognitive claim. That is, the idea of truth is implicit when the word “knowledge” is used. Otherwise that proposition is called an opinion or something else. Knowledge, is therefore, based on truth, and something which is not true cannot be reckoned as knowledge. Vincent Cheung defines knowledge as the “intellectual retention and comprehension of true propositions.” We can claim to have knowledge when the propositions we affirm are true.

But now, how do we know which propositions are true? Everybody believes some propositions or the other, the sum of which constitutes his worldview. When there are various worldviews, how does one judge which worldview is true? Answering this would require us to go into the fine details of apologetics and bibliology, and that is beyond the scope of this article. However, I will briefly state a few points which would present the answer in an embryonic form. Later, in another essay, I will elaborate on this.

John 17:17 says, “Thy word is truth.” Truth is defined as God’s Word itself. Notice that the verse does not say “Thy word is true.” This would mean that there is some higher standard of truth, and being “true” would mean conformity to that standard. Rather it says, “Thy word is truth.” This means that truth is God’s Word itself. There is no standard for comparison, since the Bible is the ultimate standard. Every other worldview is judged by the Biblical worldview. The Biblical worldview consists of all the propositions of Scripture and all propositions validly deduced from them. Every non-Biblical worldview is false since they do not start to reason from true premises. Any proposition in any worldview should be evaluated from the vantage point of Scripture. Since God is the ultimate reference point and authority for everything, He alone has the exclusive right to define truth and falsehood, right and wrong. To not believe His Word is rebellion and sin.

Now, we need to know about the nature of knowledge. As I mentioned earlier, for us to discuss about how man gains knowledge, we need to know the nature of man and the nature of knowledge. We have already examined Scriptural data and concluded that the “image of God” in man refers to a rational mind, endowed with understanding, with the capacity to process propositional content in a logical fashion. However, because of sin, man’s ability to reason syllogistically from true premises has been severely skewed. After regeneration, the Christian should start to work on thinking logically with all his premises taken from Scripture.

Now, knowledge refers to true propositions. And when we say that something is “truth,” we are referring to a particular proposition or set of propositions which are true. So, in that sense, knowledge and truth are synonymous. I will be using these terms in that sense from now on. In John 17:17 we saw that God’s Word is truth. The Bible contains the self-justifying claim that all it contains is the truth. Now we have to look study about the nature of truth.

I am stressing the importance of the “nature” of truth again and again because there are a lot of funny ideas floating around. Many say that truth is an experience, an encounter, an emotion, truth is pictorial (“A picture is worth a thousand words”) and so on. However, none of these are true, as we shall see shortly. Some of you might feel that I am delving too much into all this. But this is important. Wrong theory will lead to wrong practice. So, it is worth spending some extra time learning the correct theory, so that apply we can it appropriately and glorify God.  Here are some verses which throw light on the nature of truth.

Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is true. (Psalm 119:142)

Yet you are near, O LORD, and all your commands are true. (Psalm 119:151)

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. (Psalm 110:160)

For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does. (Psalm 33:4)

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Proverbs 30:5)

To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (Revelation 3:7)

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. (Revelation 3:14)

Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9)

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” (Revelation 21:5)

The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” (Revelation 22:6)

As the above verses state, it is the “words” which are true. We can now conclude that truth is propositional. A proposition, as defined in logic textbooks, refers to a sentence which can be either affirmed or denied. A sentence consists of a set of words connected in a meaningful fashion. A proposition is a “technical” term for a sentence. Words and clauses without context do not constitute a proposition. I am stating and explaining all this to the minute detail, because this has wide implications for what follows.

According to the Bible, truth is propositional, since only a proposition can be true or false. Truth is not pictorial. A picture is not worth a thousand words. Read Daniel chapter 2. King Nebuchadnezzar has a strange dream where he sees a lot of images and is deeply troubled by it. He calls in the courtiers to tell him the dream and interpret it. Nobody is able to do so. Daniel intervenes and God reveals the dream to him and the interpretation of it. The king did not understand the meaning of the image in gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay. The king did not understand what was meant by the stone striking the feet of the image and the image crumbling down. Both the image and event by themselves did not convey an iota of meaning to the king. Later on, Daniel, having been given the revelation by God, explains the meaning in propositions to the king and then it makes sense to him.

This proves that a picture is not worth a single word, let alone thousand words! If it is really so, that a picture is worth a thousand words, then why not convey that very idea through some picture? Why waste seven words to explain that idea when you can try to communicate that through a painting or some other pictorial equivalent? Obviously, it is impossible to communicate that idea through any picture. That is why they use words and not pictures to say that a picture is worth a thousand words! These statements might sound romantic but are stupid to the core. As children of the light, we should not parrot the clichés that the children of darkness repeat so very often. They don’t know what they talk about most of the time. In contrast with them, we should think before we speak.

I had mentioned that words or clauses without context do not constitute a proposition. In Daniel chapter 5, another king, Belshazzar sees the handwriting on the wall. There are four words, and the king is clueless as to what they mean. Daniel is called in, God reveals the necessary propositions to him, and then he makes sense of those words. This proves that single words, or phrases by themselves, without a context are meaningless and do not convey anything. After Daniel explains, the king knows and understands. Before that he was in an emotional frenzy. He was frightened, his face turned pale and his knees were knocking together. None of this emotional hype gave him truth. It was Daniel’s explanation in propositions that gave him truth. This also serves to reinforce that emotional excitement or fright will not convey any truth. Only propositions will convey truth.

In conclusion, it is worth quoting Vincent Cheung again: “knowledge is the intellectual retention and comprehension of true propositions.”

 

Biblical Epistemology

Having discussed the nature of man and the nature of knowledge, we are now fit to discuss about what the Bible teaches about how man acquires knowledge. The introductory chapters of 1 Corinthians provide an outline of Christian epistemology besides teaching other things. In 1 Corinthians 1:20-21, we learn that God has made the wisdom of the world to be foolish in His sight. God had determined that human ingenuity would not discover the truth about God, “for in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him” (v 21).

Commenting on these verses, Mathew Henry says, “All the valued learning of this world was confounded, baffled, and eclipsed, by the Christian revelation and the glorious triumphs of the cross. The heathen politicians and philosophers, the Jewish rabbis and doctors, the curious searchers into the secrets of nature, were all posed and put to a nonplus. This scheme lay out of the reach of the deepest statesmen and philosophers, and the greatest pretenders to learning both among the Jews and Greeks. All the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God. In spite of all their wisdom, ignorance still prevailed, iniquity still abounded. Men were puffed up by their imaginary knowledge, and rather further alienated from God.”

In chapter 2:9-10, we learn about God’s plan. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard (empiricism), no mind has conceived (unaided rationalism), what God has prepared for those who love Him – but He has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” Notice the contrast that is being drawn up here. Man, with his own effort, could not do anything to reach out to God. But God has taken the step to reach out to man and reveal knowledge to him.

Based on sensations (“eye has not seen, ear has not heard”) man could not learn or discover anything about God. We earlier saw how on the basis of empiricism, one cannot know anything truly, let alone know about God. On the basis of unaided rationalism, one cannot know the true premises (“no mind has conceived”), so the entire reasoning is arbitrary and haphazard. Empiricism and Rationalism cannot provide man with knowledge of God. So, what is the way out of this epistemological abyss? REVELATION!

Scripture continues and says “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit” (2 Corinthians 2:10). Empiricism and Rationalism (that is, unaided rationalism) have failed to provide humanity with the knowledge of God. Quoting Mathew Henry again: “all the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God.” In spite of all their meticulous efforts, “ignorance still prevailed.” With all the hype of civilization, men still had only “imaginary knowledge” and were “further alienated from God.” What pitiable state of affairs for those without the knowledge of God! But this was so, because God determined this is the way it ought to be (1 Corinthians 1:21). This was to frustrate human effort, pride, and wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:29). This was so that man could never boast.

The Bible says that we know about God because God has chosen to reveal knowledge about Him through the words of the Bible. “All Scripture is God breathed,” that is, (in the Greek) literally, from the mouth of God. Again, read the section on bibliology from any text on systematic theology to understand the doctrine of the Word comprehensively. God has given us knowledge about Him in His Word, the Bible. Theology is possible because God has revealed knowledge. If God did not reveal it, we would not know about it. “The secret thing belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Now, the Bible teaches that God creates, controls, and facilitates all operations in the universe, whether it is the death of a sparrow, or knowledge acquisition by man. When it comes to knowledge of God, though He has revealed truth about Him in His Word, not every person reading it can understand it or believe it. Because, even there, man is dependent on God for understanding and believing truth. Here are some verses which teach that.

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. (Acts 18:27)

And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” (Romans 10:20)

If God decides to reveal knowledge to somebody He will do so, and if He decides to withhold knowledge from another person, He will do so. Knowledge acquisition by man is solely dependent upon the power and pleasure of God.

At the same time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and the learned and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was Your good pleasure.” (Mathew 11:25-26)

No other view of epistemology will be more humiliating and frustrating to human effort and pride. But this is precisely the reason, why God determined it this way – so that no man may boast before Him. Knowledge is possible because God reveals it to man through the Bible and reinforces it in his mind and makes him understand it when he sees or hears propositions from it.

However, some will say that one still has “see” the words that are written on the paper in the Bible or “hear” the words of the Bible when it is being read aloud. That is, they still want to hold on to empiricism. We have already refuted the futility of empiricism, and we need not repeat it here. They make this objection not because empiricism is defensible, but because the noetic effects of the Fall is strong in their minds, and they need Divine operation to blast the strongholds of empiricism. God have mercy on them.

Knowledge is conveyed and retained in the form of propositions. Knowledge is retained in the mind. God engraves knowledge in the mind of man. So what then, is the role of “seeing” and “hearing”? Are they the means of conveying knowledge? NO! That is what we refuted in the earlier part of the essay. To answer this, we again we turn to 2 Corinthians 2:9-10. Here we see that neither seeing nor hearing can provide us with knowledge of God. But “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” It’s God’s Spirit who imparts knowledge of God in the form of propositions to the mind of man. So, knowledge does not reach us through seeing or hearing. Sensations do not provide any means of knowledge. For example, when the eyes see words, God’s Spirit conveys the knowledge to the mind of man, the words acting as symbols. Verse 11 and 12 go on to explain that no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. And God conveys His thoughts to us through His Spirit, so that we may understand what God has given us.

Sensations are merely the occasions during which God conveys knowledge to the mind of man. That is, upon the occasion of reading the Bible, God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man and causes Him to believe what is written. Upon the occasion of hearing the words of the Bible, God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man and causes him to understand and retain it. So, knowledge NEVER came from sensations. The sensations are merely the occasions during which God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man. This also explains why those people who are deaf and blind from birth can still understand the Bible using the special means of communication available for them. Hence, this view is also called occasionalism, which refers to the fact that upon the occasion of the concerned sensation, God directly and immediately conveys knowledge to the mind without any secondary means.

This is Biblical epistemology and it is consistent with the Biblical view of the nature of man and the Biblical view of the nature of knowledge. Biblical occasionalism is the only hope for finding the way out the epistemological darkness.

 

The Biblical Teaching Model

Now that we have studied the Biblical basis of learning, we now proceed to examine the teaching methodology taught by Scripture and its application in various contexts. As it is, this essay is becoming quite long, so I will have to skim through the passages which speak about this. Read some good commentaries on these verses to grasp the greater depth of insight that can be gleaned from them.

Parenting

In Deuteronomy 6:6-9, God commands parents how to teach their children. The commands are supposed to be on the hearts of the people and they ought to “impress them on your children” (v 7). See the force of the command – impress it upon their children. They are to talk about it when they are at home, when they walk along the road, when they lie down and get up. There are two things to be noted here.

First, parents are to talk to their children about the things of God. This is what God commands. Our children will know God when we teach them by talking to them about it. Don’t try to be more creative than God. Giving them a box of crayons and a coloring book about Noah’s Ark might hone their artistic skills, but will not teach them about God and His attributes. Likewise doing action songs might be a good way to make sure they have some physical activity, but that will not grant them any understanding of the things of God. That too, considering the shallow and sometimes even heretical theology found in many of these “action songs,” kids would be far better growing in grace by having their parents talk to them about God rather than any of these other gimmicks. This means that parents should have knowledge of God’s Word and also be skilled in communicating it.

Next, this should be done all the time in various contexts, both in the home and outside. Teaching the things of God to the children should not be reserved for some “prayer time” which lasts for around twenty minutes either before or after dinner time. Sound theology should be impressed on their minds throughout the day, as and when questions arise in the appropriate time related to the concerned issues. Of course, this means that the parents should know enough to relate the Word of God to any situation. They should know how to critique or evaluate any event or idea based on the Biblical worldview. Since the man is the head of the family, it goes without saying that he must be well versed in sound theology and apologetics to lead his family in the true worship of God and refute other false ideologies. Also, if the mother is a home-maker, she will spend most of the time with the children, since the father will be at work. This means that the mother too should have basic training in the same, if not have equal competence as her man. Motherhood is not just limited to changing nappies and singing lullabies, but also sound instruction, since the wife of noble character “speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction is on her tongue” (Proverbs 31:26). Of course, this won’t be easy. Nobody said it would be. The husband and wife should work together to help each other progress in sanctification. If they don’t care about each other’s souls and the souls of their children, they defeat the whole purpose of Christian marriage.

 

 Teaching in Nehemiah

In Nehemiah chapter 8 we are given another instance of Biblical teaching methodology when Ezra taught the things of God to apostate Israel, following which revival occurred.

“So, on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of men, women, and all who could understand. All the people listened attentively to the Book of the law.” (v 2, 3)

“They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read. Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is sacred to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law (v 8, 9).

These two passages describe the people who gathered in the assembly, the method of teaching, and the response in the people.

First, the people who gathered there were men, women, and “all who could understand.” This is important. It is mentioned twice for emphasis. The ability to understand on the part of the audience is a very significant factor for any teaching endeavor to be successful. Of course, the competence of the teacher is more important (and we will look at that shortly), but here we are discussing about the characteristics required in the audience. This fits in harmoniously with the Biblical view of man created in the image and likeness of God. The image of God in man refers to a rational mind, with the capacity to understand propositional content. The people “listened attentively” as the Book of the Law was being read. Concentration and singular focus of attention is needed for the audience to grasp what is being said.

Next, the method of teaching was by reading the Book aloud. It did not stop with that, though. Ezra read the book, “making it clear and giving the meaning.” That’s important and it should be done. Both the teacher and audience need clarity of thought and expression, the latter following from the former. The teacher should give the meaning, explaining the significance of the words which are being read. This was done so that the “people could understand.” Again we can see how the Biblical methodology of teaching fits in with Biblical anthropology and epistemology.

Finally, the response in the people was that they were “weeping as they listened to the words of the Law” (v 9). Many people object that teaching theology will deaden the affections of people. Most of the church members will find doctrine boring, so the pastor has to find some other gimmick to keep the members “entertained.” There is no limit to the extent of activities that can be done in today’s church to promote everything else but doctrine. In the end, the church resembles the state of the Temple at the time Jesus drove out the money lenders. It is like a “den of robbers” where people can comfortably make all the business profits, while true worship is neglected. If people find doctrine boring, the solution is not to go for picnics, or find better musicians to play during worship, but to keep teaching doctrine again and again. That was Paul’s advice to Timothy during the time when “men will not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2-3). Read the writings of men like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. It was so rich in theology. And because of their preaching, revival spread in places like America, England, Scotland, and Wales. As for the people who say that “theology is boring and lifeless,” let them examine their thinking and living to see whether they are Christians in the first place (2 Corinthians 13:5).

Jesus’ teaching

Here are a few verses which talk about how the crowd responded to the teaching of Jesus. Please read these verses in the larger context to see what Jesus taught and why the crowds responded they way they did.

When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority. (Mathew 7:28-29)

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. (Mathew 22:22)

When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. (Mathew 22:33)

After three days, they found him in the temple courts, sitting among teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. (Luke 2:46-47)

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. (Luke 4:12)

When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing. (Luke 13:17)

They were unable to trap him in what he said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.  (Luke 20:26)

Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!” And no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Luke 20:39-40)

“No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards declared. (John 7:46)

As we can see, Jesus’ words had such an impact on the listeners. Interestingly we are not given any physical details of Jesus’ appearance anywhere in the gospels. The ability of a preacher to make the crowd be astonished at his teaching does not lie in his physical personality, but the clarity of his thought, depth of insight, and boldness in proclamation. Again, this teaching methodology squares with the Scriptural epistemology and anthropology we had outlined earlier.

 

Philip and the Ethiopian official

In Acts 8:26-40, we have the instance of Philip teaching an Ethiopian official. Philip runs up to the chariot and finds him reading a passage from Isaiah, and asks him whether he understands what he is reading (v 30). To this he replies, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” Philip, then, using that very same passage explains about the good news about Jesus. Following that, the same day, that official was baptized. Again, this teaching method is consistent with what the Bible teaches about anthropology and epistemology.

You see, for someone to understand Scripture, somebody has to explain it to them. Only after this, true spiritual transformation will happen. Genuine conversion will not occur unless there has been understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, man, sin, and salvation. People might feel very emotional during a crusade considering the huge crowds, bright lights, loud sound equipment, and excited preachers. But unless there has been an intellectual perception of truth, any “conversion” is just a farce.

 

Apostle Paul

Finally we need to look into the teaching and life of one of the greatest teachers in the history of the Christian church – Apostle Paul. We will look into the verses which mention about the method by which Paul taught, and again, please read up good commentaries.

Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living n Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 9:22)

As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from Scripture, explaining and proving that Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming is the Christ,” he said. (Acts 17:2-3)

So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day, with those who happened to be there. (Acts 17:17)

Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. (Acts 18:4)

They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. (Acts 18:19)

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. (Acts 19:8)

From morning till evening, he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God, and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. (Acts 28:24b)

Paul “baffled” everybody by “proving” that Jesus is the Christ (9:22). His “custom” (Acts 17:2) was to preach through “reasoning from Scripture.” That is, rigorous argumentation based on Scripture. He tried to “persuade” (18:4), “argue persuasively” (19:8), and “convince” them about truth from “morning till evening” (28:24b). This is just the plain application of Biblical anthropology and epistemology in teaching methodology.

This is the way Paul went about teaching and building up the church during his time. Present day Christian leaders would do well if they embrace the Scriptural model, rather than conjuring up other methods in the name of “creativity.”

Also the advice he Paul gave to Timothy and Titus emphasizes the intellectual dimension again. In 1 Timothy 4:6, he mentions to Timothy that a “good minister” will be brought up in the “truths of the faith” and “good teaching.” A few verses later, he tells Timothy to “devote” himself to “public reading of Scripture, preaching and teaching,” telling him to be “diligent in these matters,” and giving himself “wholly to them” (1 Timothy 4:13-16). Later in chapter 6:3-4, he tells that those who “teach false doctrines that do not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching” are conceited and understand nothing. Again, the quality of doctrine plays a very, very, important role for the Apostle. In Titus 1:5-10, Paul gives Titus guidelines for appointing elders. Among other things, an elder must “hold firmly” to the “trustworthy message” so that he can encourage others by “sound doctrine” and “refute those who oppose it” (v 9). Paul does not mention anything about the elder’s ability to play musical instruments, or skill in organizing games for the youth. First and foremost, the elder should be competent in sound doctrine, and whether or not he has the other add-ons, is irrelevant to the task of feeding the sheep.

 

Neo-orthodoxy and Experience

Neo-orthodoxy refers to the heretical movement started by Soren Kierkegaard and popularized by his disciples Barth, Bultmann, and Brunner. They denied the historical nature of the Bible. The Bible was not the word of God in it content. It became the word of God only when a person “experienced” it. They said that the Bible contains contradictions, and that we must affirm both sides of the contradiction. This was considered as “maturity.” This affected every spiritual discipline. People denied the intellectual nature of the spiritual life and started chasing after experiences, feelings, emotions, and sensations. God’s Word was no longer central, but experience was.

In evangelism, they did not preach about sin and salvation, but rather about the “transcendent” needs in man. The emotional needs of man were considered more important than God’s diagnosis of his sinful condition. Christ was presented more as a massage therapist who would relieve the aches in our life, rather than as the Savior who will save our souls from God’s wrath. This movement gained a strong hold in the church and even now we see ripples if it everywhere. And for most of these people, it’s either their experience or ignorance which stands judge over Divine Revelation. If they don’t know about something, then God has not spoken about it. If they have not experienced something, then it’s not necessary for life. People wanted to learn about God by “experience” and at the end if it, the ideas they landed up with are anything but Scriptural.

 

Experience, Pragmatism, and Learning

A brief word about how obsession with “experience” has led people to be pragmatic and discard theological knowledge. Many times when people say, “please teach something practical, not theoretical” what they want is some knowledge which they can use in their lives and benefit from. Now, knowledge of God will always have benefit in our lives. It will always refine our soul more and more to the likeness of Christ. But that’s not what these people want. They want to have some knowledge of God so as to have greater comforts, monetary gains, or other privileges in life. Now, I am not at all decrying the need to take care of ourselves and enjoy God’s creation in legitimate ways that He has ordained. I am writing against the attitude people have, when knowledge of God interests them only if it serves some pragmatic end in their life. If it doesn’t, they don’t care. For example, studying about the Trinity will not enable one to make more money. So, that, for them, is “too theoretical.”  On the other hand, talk about how to be in the “right” place, how to marry the “right” person, or how to work in the “right” job, you will see that they give you their undivided attention. They want just enough knowledge to be happy in life, but not enough knowledge that will renew their minds and conform them more to the likeness of Christ.

You see, this the attitude that I am rebuking. We should seek to know and worship God because He is God. Period. Whether or not it leads to comfortable living should make no difference to us. We worship God because of who He is and what He commands. In the words of a song by Paul Wilbur: “We do not seek Your hand. We only seek Your face.” Knowledge of God is a worthy end in itself. Read Jonathan Edwards’ book The End For Which God Created The World. He shows how God’s glory is the reason for the creation of the universe, and that should be our pursuit in life as well.

This calls for a return to theocentric religion as opposed to man-centered religion. We should realize and understand that God is the center of the universe, not we. Since He created all of reality, He has ALL the rights and authority to demand from His creatures what He wills. John Piper wrote an excellent article titled “Is God For Us or For Himself?” In that article he brings out God’s concern for His own glory to be the primary, overarching motive for all His actions in history.

Another brief word about motive for studying theology. It goes without saying that knowledge of God will always edify us and others. However, you should not read theology to quote famous statements to others and then bask in the appreciation they give you. When one is gifted with teaching, it’s easy to get carried away by the appreciation of people. At such times, we should be very careful in guarding our thinking. We should work hard at studying and teaching because God commands it for our sanctification, and His glory. We should not study to impress others, but to edify them. We should constantly weed out any such thoughts where we congratulate ourselves on our achievements, always remembering that though we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, it is God who wills and works in us according to His pleasing.

Towards the end of his life, Paul penned 2 Timothy. He was awaiting trial before Caesar, and was under house arrest in Rome. He is aware that he has come to the end of his life. He mentions that he is ready to be poured out as a drink offering, and the time has come for his departure. He as fought the good fight, finished the race, and kept the faith (2 Timothy 4:6-7). He is aware that he has finished the task which God has given him to do. But notice what he tells Timothy in verse 13: “When you come, bring the cloaks that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.” Commentators say that the scrolls and parchments might refer to the Hebrew Old Testament, or the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of it. Here we can see the life of a true scholar who does not cease to learn even though death awaits him any time! Oh, that God would give us such a voracious appetite for His Word!

 

Application

We have seen that when “experience” becomes the cornerstone of our life, the result is everything but God glorifying. Also, closely related to experience is pragmatism where people want to know about God only when it can be used by them for some other ulterior ends. Knowledge of God becomes a means to some other higher end, when actually knowledge of God is an end in itself. They try to “use” God. But God is not mocked. He wont be treated like some waiter in a restaurant whom you can summon as you wish, order what you want, and expect him to bring it when you please. A person reaps what he sows. God is not mocked. You can’t think of God as you wish, independent of what He has revealed about Himself in Scripture. You will reap the consequences of your false belief, if not now, in eternity.  

In Hosea 4:6 God says, “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” Not from lack of experience. Nowhere in Scripture are we encouraged to “experience” God. Of course, experience will confirm what we already know about God. I do not deny that. That is why we are quite often called to recall God’s faithfulness and mercy in the past. So without some prior knowledge about God, one cannot evaluate any experience. That’s why, in Scripture, we are repeatedly exhorted to know God.

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. (Ephesians 1:7-8)

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:17, 18)

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, (Colossians 1:9, 10)

Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2, 3)

Experience does NOT have any epistemological authority. Only God’s Word does. Experience is not the best teacher. It is the worst teacher. In fact, experience cannot us teach us anything at all, since it is plagued by empiricism. In contrast, according to Scriptural epistemology, only God’s Spirit can convey knowledge to our mind as we read God’s Word where we have been given “everything we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3). If you disagree, please consider calling your belief system anything but Christianity.