If I claim to know something, I cannot claim to know it exhaustively; I am finite. I do say that I know things, though likely some of that which I am sure of knowing I will later renounce, for I have done so in the past and am not yet perfected. Does this mean that nothing can be known for sure? I would think not, though perhaps this is the case. How then do I function intellectually and make absolute statements?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that I can know something for sure. Even that knowledge may not be useful to me if I am not employing it for its intended means (assuming that absolute knowledge comes from an absolute being and therefore was brought into being for a particular purpose). In this case I would not really know it certainly for its very purpose is not fulfilled and thus its knowledge cannot be complete. If we are to believe what is written in scripture, knowledge comes not from a dispassionate law book, but from a personal and dynamic God. Therefore knowledge is part of relationship, and relationship as it was intended to be had with the absolute God. In this case, I know insofar as the developement of my relationship with God permits me to know.

If, however, I cannot know anything in absolute certainty, then to even function I must decide to know something sufficiently. This knowledge must be based on belief, for it cannot be certain. I must become a pragmatist and speak of knowing and operating according to what is beneficial. What can be beneficial but what allows all things to function in harmony? The very idea of harmony causes me to look to its composer, and understand what he desires to create. In scripture the creator creates for his pleasure in a relationship with his creation. In this case I mayknow insofar as it is beneficial in bringing about the kind of relationship that the creator desires.