But the biblical "fact" has to be authenticated by the a priori "knowldge" (gnosis), otherwise it's not a biblical 'fact' is it?
What you call faith is not hope but certainty of the (s)elect, which neither you nor anyone else can prove, so it is pointless to speak of it as a matter of fact.
Claiming such knowldge as fact is at its root Gnostic.
Claiming such knowldge as fact is at its root Gnostic.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:1-5
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. - John 17:20-23
God proves Himself in His own way, e.g. in fulfilling prophesy. He does not comply with man's demands for proof:
And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest [it] in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. - Mark 15:29-32
***But the biblical “fact” has to be authenticated by the a priori “knowldge” (gnosis), otherwise it’s not a biblical ‘fact’ is it? ***
Beside the fact that this statement doesn’t really say anything, unless you want to disprove the existence of a priori knowledge, I would be intrigued with your evidentiary case for the existence of God.
I must say, knowing some Orthodox folks, I’m embarrased for them because of you.
But the biblical "fact" has to be authenticated by the a priori "knowledge" (gnosis), otherwise it's not a biblical 'fact' is it?
Well, I really don't see any connection between "gnosis" and Biblical fact, unless you are saying that (only for us?) "gnosis" and faith itself are the same thing. Perhaps for you "gnosis" is any knowledge or interpretation that is different from your own personal interpretation. If you don't personally buy it, then it must be magical "gnosis" and therefore false? But there is a problem. While you will accede to any teaching of your Church as correct, you still disagree personally with some/many of their holdings. Why would your Church not also be guilty of gnosis? Or, is gnosis anything that disagrees with you OR your Church? :)
You see where I'm coming from? The argument I appear to be getting is that if one puts his trust on earth in a group of men, then he cannot be guilty of gnosis because those men cannot be guilty of gnosis, (proof unavailable at this time). However, if one puts his trust on earth in the word of God, THEN he must be a Gnostic and most everything he believes is wrong. This argument just doesn't hold water.
What you call faith is not hope but certainty of the (s)elect, which neither you nor anyone else can prove, so it is pointless to speak of it as a matter of fact. Claiming such knowledge as fact is at its root Gnostic.
Our proof that the elect exist is in the Bible. Our proof that an individual can know if he or she is of the elect is in the Bible. The FACT is that it is in the Bible. Now, whether it is true or not is another matter for many people. But for some people, if it is in the Bible, then it is a fact (in the context of the whole Bible). I know that for you there is no proof (that I am aware of) that will satisfy you of this. So, I am at a loss as to what to do about that.
But it is OK. In the same way there is nothing I can think of that you can do to prove to me that I should reject what I think the Bible clearly says, and instead follow what the men of your Church say it really means. For me that would be to throw away the rational in order to embrace the irrational. I'm just not in a position to do that. :) Therefore, I would think that by your own standards, we would have every bit as much right to accuse you of Gnosticism as you have to accuse us.