
Which are two things, not one. The ground of our knowing is a question of ontology, or being. The beginning of our knowing is a question of epistemology, or how we know what we know. To understand the ground of our knowing we have to go back to the beginning. All the way back to the actual beginning, “In the beginning, God” (Gen. 1:1a). This verse, filled to overflowing with meaning, tells us that once there was God, and nothing else. He is the groundless ground of all other things.
Everything else that is, is because of Him. Including everything else that is true. Just as we live and move and have our being in Him, so does truth live and move and have its being in Him. Without Him there is no truth to know. There is no way to know. There is, without Him, no one to know anything. Truth is dependent on Him.
Which is not at all the same thing as saying that God is the beginning of our knowing. He is not. This in no way diminishes His power, His glory, or anything I highlighted above. It simply acknowledges what should be obvious, that our knowing must begin with us. Many times I’ve had friends try to plant their knowing flag in heaven itself by claiming, “I begin my knowing with God.” To which I, hopefully not too cheekily, reply, “’I begin with God’ begins with whom?”
When we claim that we begin our knowing with God we confess that we begin our knowing with us. No, I’m not beginning to equivocate on “begin.” “God is the one I begin with” doesn’t escape the problem. It’s not what goes in the front of the sentence; it’s where we start knowing.
When Rene Descartes coined his famous expression, “Cogito ergo sum,” “I think, therefore I am” he wasn’t merely affirming that thought meant a lot to him. It wasn’t the philosophical equivalent of bikers whose jackets say “Live to Ride; Ride to Live.” Rather he was making the same point I am making. His goal was to find a truth that could not be doubted. He discovered that were he to doubt even his own existence, it would require of him that he exist. Our own existence is indubitable.
The thinking then is not the ground of his existence. It was, however, the indisputable proof. In like manner, in order to affirm anything, including “I begin with God” one must first affirm, overtly or implicitly, but certainly first, “I am.” To put it a mite pithily, “I AM precedes I am but “I am someone who” precedes “knows I AM is.”
As with most philosophical considerations, most of us respond in one of two ways. Either we are bored because all we’ve done is affirm what we all already knew, or we are intrigued because we discovered some background on what we already knew. There are important implications that flow from all the above. They will have to wait for another day.







