Home » Kent Brandenburg » Not Knowing What You With Certainty Can Know Is True and Knowing What You Can’t Know Is True

Not Knowing What You With Certainty Can Know Is True and Knowing What You Can’t Know Is True

What you can know with certainty is anything that God says.  You know the Bible is true.  God said it.  It’s true and you can know it with certainty.  More than ever, what God says, people don’t know.  They treat what God said like they can’t know it.

Scripture talks about treating what you can know like you can’t know it.  It’s not about knowing.  It’s about wanting.  Someone doesn’t want to do it, so he eliminates it by not knowing it.  He can know it and he does know it.  He says he doesn’t know it.

What I’m writing about is like a little child who “forgets.”  A parent asks if the child knows.  The child nods, “No,” shaking his head back and forth, when the child knows.  Not knowing is an excuse for not doing.  He does know.  With a very large sample size, I can say that children know more than what they act like they do.

Very often, for what people can know, they stay ignorant.  They could know, but they don’t want to know.  They like what they’re doing.  If they don’t try to find out, then they won’t know.  If they don’t know, they won’t have to do.

Knowing what you can know with certainty very often isn’t popular.  It’s easier just to say that you don’t know.

On the other hand, people treat the Bible like it can’t be known.  It’s just opinion.  It is a story book of preferences.  If it makes you feel good, sure, go ahead with it, but don’t treat it like something you can know.

An example of not knowing what you can know occurred recently in the Senate hearings for confirming the Supreme Court justice, when a Senator asked her to define a woman.  She said she didn’t know that.  She could know, but wasn’t willing to know.

Very often what the world knows is that it can’t know.  It knows with certainty that it can’t know.  The unknowability provides freedom.  You’re not to judge what you can’t know, so you must not know.  That way no one can judge.  Then you get to live like you want.

Unwillingness to know becomes a basis of toleration.  You’re in trouble if you judge something wrong, because you’re saying you can know, when you can’t.  You’re left with tolerating wrong things.  It’s required.  The judgment itself becomes what’s wrong.  An irony is that you can know when someone else can’t know.

I’m not saying, however, that people don’t say they know things.  They know what’s wrong with their meal at a restaurant.  These people write a bad review with complete conviction of their own knowledge.  They know if they got bad service from someone.  They know when someone offends them because it’s what they feel.

People know evolution is true.  Evolution is still a theory.  That status hasn’t changed, but men now know men evolved.  This theory promotes naturalism.  Knowing it frees men from their accountability to God, when they don’t know it.  It’s a theory.  It’s a theory that we actually know is not true.

Critical theory poses as knowledge.  People know your motives.  They know you’re racist.  Climate science says it knows the world will end by global warming.  Man causes the end of the world through natural means.  God tells man how the world will end.  That we know.

Churches are more and more worldly because of more and more preference, a lack of knowledge about scriptural things that were once known.  They are still known, but treated like they are not.  What distinguishes the roles of men and women, what were once known, now not known.  The psychology behind overturning scripture, creating victims, who are not victims, this is now known.  People are sure of this.

What I’m describing is leaning on man’s understanding and not on God’s.  God is always right.  Man is rarely to never.  Living by faith, which pleases God, is living by what man can and should know, not by what he knows, but that he really cannot.

How should someone treat willful not knowing or rebellious knowing?  He should tell the truth.  He should embrace knowing what he can and should know.  As the psalmist wrote in Psalm 118:6, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?”  He should also stand against what he knows men cannot know.


2 Comments

  1. Your site has some great stuff!

    How about “Evolution POSES as a theory”?

    If we can agree that a rubric or metric of “things happen” is not a theory, then how can we classify evolution as a theory?

    The definition of biological evolution = a change in allele frequency over time.

    But this is just saying “allele changes happen.” It says nothing about the manner in which alleles change. Indeed there is not a single known instance of natural processes creating genotypic information.

    If “things happen” is manifestly not a theory, then how could “allele changes happen” be a theory?

    Were the definition of evolution to be modified to include the creation of genotypic information by natural processes, evolution would then be a theory. But it would be exposed as a theory without evidence. And that is why the silly mere CHANGE in allele frequency is entrenched as the definition.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives