15 Year Old Talks about Apologetics | Apologetics Live 0024

Cessationism, the Canon, and 1 Corinthians 1:7

All right. We are live. Apologetics Live coming to you again Thursday night, 8 o 'clock Eastern time when we go live each time. This, it can also be heard on podcast. Just search for Apologetics Live.

You can get it there, get it downloaded if you subscribe every week. I am back. And Matt, two weeks that I'm gone and what are you doing? Matt Slick from karm .org. I bring Eli in and what does he do?

Both weeks he says, Oh, no one can answer my arguments about gifts. Wrong. You're, you're totally wrong on this one, Matt. You're totally wrong.

So how nice should I be to you when I dismantle you? That's the question that I'm thinking.

Let's correct the record. Okay. Someone needs to correct Matt here. So let's start. Matt has two verses, two passages he looked at. And folks, if you want to get in, ask questions, what you could do is go to apologeticslive .com, apologeticslive .com.

And from there, you'll get to the page where you would be able to see the link to participate. Also, the link is on karm .org, which is the ministry Matt works for. I should mention that I'm with Striving for Eternity.

So here's the thing. Matt likes to bring up 1 Corinthians 1 .7. That says, and so, so that you are not lacking in any gift and the word gift there as Matt and I will both agree is charismatas, which is the charismatic gifts.

So that you are not lacking in any gift as you wait for the revealing of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, Matt says that no one can answer this. This is his best argument, but the one thing, and you can look this up in any dictionary, or if you want in the Greek dictionary, lack requires a need.

If there's no need for the gifts, then they're not lacking. So it does not argue as Matt was arguing that you need every gift to continue for today. Only if the church would be missing something, the church isn't missing anything because it has the scriptures.

And so we could go to that. Now Matt's follow-up is 1 Corinthians 13. He's going to argue, let me turn there, as he was arguing that the passage there where it says that look face to face, here's the thing, face to face doesn't always, and Matt, I will give you this, Matt, you did correct yourself.

You can be taught, because you said almost all of the, I wish everyone just saw the face you just made, that look of surprise when I give you a couple of it. You did say almost all of the passages that say face to face refer to personal encounters, because there is one that in the English says as face reflects face, which is what I would argue that should be, because I see those as three illustrations.

So I wouldn't take the illustration and try to argue for literal. Now the thing is, is that I'm going to say that all three of those, when I look as a child, I spoke as a child, I reasoned as a child, I became a man, I gave up childish things, that's an illustration of something coming to maturity, which is what the word teleos means, the perfect, which I'm going to say is the canon.

Then verse 12 in 1 Corinthians 13, looking in a mirror dimly versus face reflecting face, or face to face. Again, it's an illustration, then knowing in part versus knowing in whole. All three of those are illustrations of something coming to completion, which fits for the canon.

So, needed to set this record straight. I will say, I hope that you guys enjoyed. Eli, we're going to probably get him back in. Eli and Matt put together like two brainiacs, just going, okay, let's see how much.

I'm going to respond to your 1 Corinthians 1 -7 thing. Excuse me, I just, I corrected your false record that you had out there for two weeks.

Okay, go ahead. So notice what he said, folks. He defines it in a certain way and then argues from the definition. Now, he said, we're not to lack anything because the church isn't lacking anything. Well, okay.

Who says the church isn't lacking anything? Just because it's who we have the Bible doesn't mean the church isn't lacking anything. And notice what 1 Corinthians 1 -7 says, that the need for the gifts is to occur until the return of Christ.

So therefore, we have a need for.

The gifts until the return of Christ. The thing there is that there is a passage that says that these gifts will cease. Yeah, at the return of Christ, 1 Corinthians 13. And I would argue that.

That's with the completion of the canon. So when the completion of the canon, that's when we're.

Known as we're fully known? As an illustration. See, you're taking the illustration as a literal.

That's your problem. I'm just, no, I'm just taking the Bible for what it says. Okay. So we're known by Christ means we're saved. We're known as we're fully known. And you only find the phraseology.

Of the believers. So let's go verse by verse. Verse 11. Is that an illustration? When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child, but when I became a man, I gave up childish things.

Is that to be taken literally? Or is that an illustration? It's.

Literal. I thought I reasoned as a child. It's literal. I became a man, did away with those.

Childish things. That's literal. Yeah. Okay. Well, at least you changed your position from when we debated on that one. Cause you took that one as a figurative. It could also be literal, but look at it.

It's literal. It's what it means. So what it's talking about is an illustration of what, what is the word teleosman? Completion. Completion. So someone that comes to maturity, it's complete, mature, perfect.

It's translated perfect in most of the translations here in 1 Corinthians 13, which I think causes problems for some folks, but is someone coming from childhood to manhood? Is that an, a picture of maturity?

That's a non-sequitur question. It's a direct question because that's the argument he's making. Your question doesn't make sense. Okay. So in verse 10, he says, he talks about when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

So the whole argument is something that's complete versus something that's partial, something that becomes matured. That's teleos. He talks about a child maturing to an adulthood. So what you have here is a child that becomes a man.

It's an illustration. You have the same thing with a seeing in a, in polished metal, not a mirror like we have in polished metal versus looking face to face. Then that's the completion. Then you have the third one, knowing in part versus knowing fully.

All three of those are illustrations of something that's partial to completion. It fits perfectly with the context. Yeah. If you're reading into it,.

You're dispensational. I'm just reading it. The verse says, no, you're not just reading it. You're explaining it as you read it. That's not just reading it. Notice what it says. It says, and 1 Corinthians 1 .7, he really didn't address when I raised the issue because Paul himself tells us that we're not to lack these while we're waiting for Jesus to return.

So he's saying that the need is to occur until the return of Christ. So that answers that problem that you gave right there. Yes, it does. Because he says, okay, let's, let's deal with it. Let's deal with.

It because the word, okay, lack requires that there has to be something missing. If God said, if God uses revelatory gifts and then completes the Bible and no more need for those revelatory.

Gifts, then it's not lacking anything. It says while you're waiting for the return of Christ, does he equate that with the return of Christ? Yeah. But the thing is the church is not lacking anything. Does he relate the issue of the gifts of not lacking gifts while you're waiting for.

The return of Jesus? 1 Corinthians 1 .7, yes. There's no lack. We're not to lack anything while we're waiting for Jesus to return, right? You have to show that there's a need for the gifts then.

I don't think there's a need for the gift. Well, that's what the word lack means. No, lack, no, lack doesn't mean there has to be a need. It means what it means here is you're not.

Without it. You're not without any gift. That's why I say to look up. In the dictionary, every single dictionary talks about the word lack referring to or that there's a need, there's.

Something missing. Of course, we need the charismatic gifts for today. We need the word of knowledge and the word of wisdom. We need salvation. The free gift of God is the free gift, charisma. Same word here is found in Romans 6 .23.

It says, we're not to the wages in his death, but the free gift of God's eternal life. The word gift there is charisma, and it's an eternal life gift, charismatic gift. We're not going to be having, when Jesus comes back, if you're Amillennial like me, it makes perfect sense.

When he comes back, the new heavens and new earth are made. Eternal life isn't going to be doled out anymore. It's all completed. Write that in there. Done. There's not going to be any more born again experiences because the summation of all the ages occurs at that point.

What Paul does here in 1 Corinthians 1 .7, you're not to lack any gift, waiting eagerly. You're not to lack, you're not lacking in a present participial sense of what it looks like while you're waiting for the return of Christ.

So if you're waiting for the return of Christ, then you shouldn't be lacking it because you've got them while you're waiting for the return of Christ. That's all it says. What's the big deal?

But the point is, if the lack requires a need, if there's no need, we need the word of knowledge.

We need the word of wisdom. Why? We have the Bible. The Bible is great. And then the Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 14, that when the church comes together and they do these things, that the elders are to judge what's happening.

So there was definitely a need for these things in the Corinthian church. But that was before the Bible was complete. Yeah. But you're assuming, you're just, all you're doing is just making an assumption.

No, no, no. I'm looking at it. Let me finish. You're saying it's just, you're assuming that when the perfect comes means the Bible. You're just an assumption on your part. Yeah. Well, I'm just reading the context.

No, you're not. The context doesn't say it's the completion of the canon. 1 Corinthians 1 .7 says, you're not lacking any gift while you're waiting for the revelation of Christ. Now, what does it say here when it says in 1 Corinthians 13, you'd think that Paul is going to be consistent with his, his understanding of, of the gifts and the return of Christ.

But we now know in part and prophesy in part, but then when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. What's the, then you say it's perfect, but completion of the canon, nothing in there requires that.

Well, okay. So it requires it. And he says, when I was a child, I spoke as a child, now we see dimly, then face-to-face, then we're going to see Christ face-to-face when we have the Bible. We're going to see Christ face-to-face when he returns.

Hold on. Hold on. And this makes.

More sense. The way I'm explaining it, because I'm, I'm using the illustrations as illustrations. I'm not taking them as literal when I want to. What does it mean face-to-face? What's the one.

Exception. You think face-to-face means where it's not an actual encounter? Huh? In Proverbs,.

I think it's Proverbs 15. Proverbs what? I have to look it up, but while I'm looking it up. So the thing is this. Well, let's look it up. Let's look it up first. I'm looking, I'm looking, but I can do two things at once.

Not as well as you, but this is the thing. What you see is all three illustrations are illustrations of something that comes to completion, and that's the thing. So you have a something that is partial.

Proverbs 27, 19. As in water, face reflects face. So the heart of man reflects the man. That is Proverbs 27, 19.

So in the Hebrew, that's face-to-face. As water, face reflects face. Water, face, face. Yeah. Okay. So let's, hold on. So what I'm doing is, let me show you something. Face-to-face is the issue, right?

Not face-face, but the phrase face-to-face. That's what is used. So when I go to Genesis, type in Logos, face-to-face, we see, let's see how God uses the phrase face-to-face. And what he says is, so Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, I have seen God face-to-face.

So that's a personal encounter. All right. Well, let me finish. This is the whole thing. Exodus 33, 11. God used to speak to Moses face-to-face. As a man speaks to his friend. There you go. Lord spoke to you face-to-face at the mountain.

Deuteronomy 5, 4. Deuteronomy 30, 10. Moses, whom knew the Lord face-to-face. Personal encounter. Judges 6, 22. For now I've seen the angel, the Lord face-to-face. Personal encounter. Keep going. I'm hitting the next thing.

Jeremiah 32, 4. It says, we'll be given into the hand of the King of Babylon. We'll speak to him face-to-face and see him eye-to-eye. The next one is 34, 3 of Jeremiah. It says, see the King of Babylon eye-to-eye.

We'll speak to him face-to-face. Speak with you face-to-face. Render to judgment with you face-to-face. Exodus 20, 35. Ezekiel, excuse me. Acts 25, 16. New Testament context. Meet his accusers face-to-face.

Let's go. I mean, that's what it says, but then face-to-face. Now I know. 1 Corinthians 13, 12. 2 Corinthians 10, 1. I am meek when face-to-face with you. Speak face-to-face, your joy may be made full.

In 2 John. But none of those matter,.

Matt, because that's, I'm not disagreeing with any of those passages, but you're ignoring the one passage that doesn't make the case that you're saying. What's my case I'm making? Well,.

That it's a personal encounter. So my case is the phrase face-to-face speaks of a personal encounter. I've not seen any place in the Bible where it contradicts that. No. Face-to-face, not face-to-face.

And it does have the phrase in Hebrew, face-to-face. In the Hebrew, face-to-face exists, but in what you quote in Proverbs didn't fit it. The fact that it doesn't fit what you're saying just shows the weakness of your position.

And think about this. If we have 20 places where face-to-face is personal encounter, we have one in Proverbs, which is wisdom literature, which is understandably figurative. And if that's where you want to go to and say, see, all the other instances are personal encounter, but this one in a poetic context means something other than that.

Let's take it over to 1 Corinthians 13. And that's why we can say in 1 Corinthians 13, that face-to-face does not mean personal encounter. Here's the thing, what.

You see, folks, is Matt is taking this phrase and jumping all over the Bible to get the meaning of it. Instead of looking at the immediate context like I am doing, I'm looking at the immediate context.

The word teleos has to do with something that comes to completion or maturity. And then you have it in verse 10, perfect to partial. When the perfect comes, partial passes away. Then he says, child to adulthood.

He then talks about seeing dimly versus seeing clearly. That's what the phrase is talking about. Why? Because it's not a mirror like we have today. It's seeing in a mirror dimly, but then face-to-face, known partial versus known complete.

All three are talking about something that comes to completion or maturity. That's the context. I don't have to jump all over the Bible to say face-to-face must mean the same thing everywhere, especially when I have one passage where I can clearly see it means reflection.

So now we have two places where.

It's used as an illustration. Wait a minute, wait a minute. So you're saying you have two places.

Where it means illustration? Yeah. Where's the second one? Proverbs 2719. No, no, where's the other one besides Proverbs? Proverbs 2719 and 1 Corinthians 13. Okay, so 1 Corinthians 13 is the.

Context under examination. Yes. So to say that it supports your position is to beg the question.

Okay. Is there a comparison in verse 12 being made between a mirror and seeing clearly? Is that the illustration? Yeah. Okay. So it's not talking about personal encounter. It is a relationship between seeing dimly versus seeing clearly.

What you're doing is you're reading into the text too much. I'm just reading the text. No, you're not. Yes, I am. I'm not jumping all over the Bible to say it's a personal encounter. You don't see that.

There's.

Nothing in here that says it's a personal encounter. About the Hebrew, when you go to Proverbs 2719, it does not say face-to-face. As you were saying, we have different words. It's a little bit different construction.

So in Proverbs, the best you've got, as it says face-to-face, as water, face reflects face, so the heart of man reflects man. It would literally be translated face is face. So what's happening is we have in Proverbs, this is your only text that you've got to argue from, your only one, because the other issue is under examination in 1 Corinthians 13.

So you can't use that and say that proves my point. That's begging the question. You have to find in Scripture where the term face-to-face, when it's talking about the return of Christ, means what you're going to be saying is, or the completion of the Bible, which you're just assuming that's what it means, the completion of the Bible.

That's just an assumption. You haven't even established that it's true. What I have done is showing you from 1 Corinthians 1 -7 that it said we're not to lack any gift while we're waiting for the return of Christ.

These gifts are again mentioned by representation and knowledge and wisdom and things like that in 1 Corinthians 11. And so he said when the perfect comes, it's consistent to say that what Paul is doing is arguing about the return of Christ.

And because it's the return of Christ, that is when we'll see face-to-face, and that's when we're known as we're fully known. To be fully known by God is to be saved. When the Bible is there and completed, it doesn't mean then that all of a sudden we're not, that when the Bible is completed, it means that's when we're going to see face-to-face.

So let me ask you a question. And there's different ways to tackle this problem of yours. When it says face-to-face there in 1 Corinthians 13, when the Bible is completed, how is it that we're seeing face-to-face when the Bible is completed?

What does it mean? You there? I don't hear them. Hello? No. Can anybody hear me? You guys can hear me type something in the chat on the side. Can you hear me now? Now I hear you. Oh, okay. All right.

The mic was wrong. I don't know why. Okay. So here's the thing, Matt. What I'm looking at when I look at this, here's why I see this as referring to the canon, because it says that when this, whatever the teleos is, when that's complete, there's not a need for the gifts.

You don't need them. Therefore there is no lack. This answers it perfectly fine. So there's no lack because there's no need. There's no need because the canon's complete. When you look at these gifts, they're all deal with revelation.

You have three illustrations of something that goes from incomplete to complete, from childhood to adulthood, seeing dimly versus seeing clearly, knowing in part versus knowing fully. All three of those, they fit perfectly with the context.

I'm not jumping anywhere else in the Bible. I don't need to. To say that this is a personal encounter when you admitted that it is a comparison between seeing in a mirror dimly versus seeing clearly, that's the point of it.

So that would be what it's saying. I wouldn't read into it that it's a personal encounter because the phrase is used elsewhere. Okay. And I'll grant you, everywhere else in Scripture other than this one verse in Proverbs 27 and 1 Corinthians 13, if we exclude those two, everywhere else, face-to-face is a personal encounter.

But that.

Doesn't mean it must be here. That's the thing. The fact is, the great majority of the verses that God has ordained, it means personal encounter. And the only place where you can argue it doesn't mean that, which I'm not granting it.

The phraseology is identical. Therefore, it fits. But the only place you can do that is in Proverbs, which is wisdom literature to begin with. And it talks in a figurative sense in its own context. So it's intended to be figurative.

But in 1.

Corinthians 13 There's a reason I went to the Proverbs. The only reason, because you say everywhere. Well, you used to say, you didn't in the show the last couple of weeks, but you say everywhere. And Proverbs would be the one that would, other than the 1 Corinthians, that would buck that.

But the whole point is, I would stay within the 1 Corinthians 13 and say that is an illustration of seeing something clearly. And when you see it clearly, you don't need that.

Partial thing anymore. That's what is the context there, correct? So how do you see face-to-face.

When the Bible is completed? Well, when the Bible's complete, it's not partial.

How do you see face-to-face when the Bible is completed? It's not literal. How do you see face-to-face? What does it mean then? It doesn't mean what it says, okay, but now it's figurative. So what does it mean?

Seeing that you don't see in a mirror dimly, but now the comparison is seeing dimly versus.

Seeing clearly. Okay, so, oh wait, so that's already said in a different verse. So what.

Does face-to-face mean? That is the verse. Okay, the verse is, it says, for now I see in a mirror dimly. So now, right now, I see in the mirror dimly, but then when this thing's complete, I see face-to-face.

So the comparison is seeing in a mirror dimly versus seeing face-to-face. Now it's partial, later it's complete.

So it's blurry to clear. Is that what you're saying? That's exactly what it's saying. Okay, so that's what you're saying. So that's what it means. Face-to-face means it's clear. It's clear. Okay, that's what it means.

That's what the context is saying. That's not what you say the context says. Do you have any other places, Skipper, to support that?

Sure. The verse right before it and the verse right after it, where again, it talks about.

Something that comes to complete. The phrase face-to-face. Okay, so you're begging the question again. No, I'm not. Okay, I showed it to you though. I'm asking you to show me the phrase face-to-face.

Show me the phrase that God uses where it means that it's not a personal encounter.

Okay. What in this text requires that? Why should an illustration be?

No, no. I'm trying to work with you. I'm asking you what it means face-to-face here. You're basically saying it means more clarification.

Okay. So I'll explain it again.

No, no, no. I understand. I'm just trying to get what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. The phrase face-to-face. What does it mean right there in that context according to your idea? It means to see clearly.

To see clearly. So when the Bible's completed, that's when we see clearly?

We will have the completed Bible, yes.

So when the Bible's completed, then we see clearly.

When a child becomes an adult, does he still mature?

Okay. When the Bible's completed, is that when we see clearly? Is that what you're saying?

It's hard to answer because what you're doing, Matt, is you're doing the non-sequitur. You take the one phrase, you're ripping it out of the context, and then you want to answer where the phrase is everywhere else in the Bible.

That's the thing. There's nothing in this text that requires that.

Okay. Well, context. When the perfect comes. And the question isn't what the perfect is. Was a child that spoke with a child, thought as a child? Now I don't do those things. Now we see in a mere dimly, but then face-to-face.

We see incompletely now, but when Christ returns, we're going to see perfectly, which makes perfect sense from that. Now I know in part, but then when he returns, then I'll know as I'm fully known. And we only find the phrase fully known or to be known by God as a personal relationship with the elect of the Christians who are saved.

We don't find that. Phraseology can be supported by the idea when the Bible's completed, then we're fully known. It doesn't make any sense. When Jesus is talking here, oh, excuse me. When Paul was talking here, he's reflecting out of first Corinthians one seven, when he says that you're not to lack any charisma while you're waiting for the return of Christ.

And as Charlie pointed out, I'm glad he did. You go to the very next verse. What it says there is that he will keep you firm until the end of blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, where he's talking about there is judgment that we are not to lack any charismatic gift while we're waiting for the return of Christ and the judgment occurrence.

That's what first Corinthians one seven is saying. And first Corinthians 13, the motif is carried over. He says that when the perfect comes, what is the completion of all things that are done by Christ when he returns, which makes perfect sense that when now we don't have the full knowledge of everything in creation, in our understanding and all of that kind of stuff.

But when Jesus returns, we're going to see him face to face. That's how the phrase is used in scripture. And the phrase, I'll be known as I'm fully known, that is only, only used in a relationship sense.

So you not only have to deal with face to face, but you also have to deal with have been fully known as I have been fully known because both have the antecedent to perfect. So you have to work both of them in harmony.

That's why I'm trying to ask you, what's face to face mean there? And then you have to go over and say, what does it mean to say I'm known as I'm.

Fully known? Okay. I'm not reading into the passage, anything like you are doing. You're reading so much into that. You're reading in face to face, being a personal encounter. There's nothing in the text that requires it.

You're reading in fully known, which again is another illustration. It's a comparison. All three of these are comparisons, something that's partial to something that's complete. The Bible was partially written when it was complete.

There wasn't any more need for those three gifts. Therefore, the church is not lacking them. Therefore, the first first Corinthians one seven is fine. There's no lack because there's no more.

Need. So, okay. That's called begging the question. And you said, you said nothing in the text requires personal encounter, the phrase face to face. I've shown you many verses where that is exactly the case for you to say that nothing is there for that is really just not accurate.

So, let me ask you again, face to face, what does that mean. Along with the idea of to know fully, just as I have been fully known to be fully known, how does that relate to the completion of the.

Canon? This is what you're doing, Matt. You're taking it out of its context. Okay. And I'll explain why. The context here is a comparison between looking in the mirror dimly. That's the comparison. It's a comparison.

Mirror dimly, face to face, knowing in part, knowing full. That's what it's saying there. The other one, the one previous is child to adult. All three of them, all three have to deal with something that's partial to something that's complete, which is exactly what it says in verse 10.

When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. That fits perfectly with the context without having to jump anywhere else to try to read into this some personal encounter or knowing something. Now, here's the thing.

Just because a word or phrase is used elsewhere in the Bible, you have the burden to say of proof to show why it must be.

In this passage. What does the phrase to be fully known mean in the context of the completion of the.

Canon? Oh, it means that you have a partial canon, you know in part, but then you know fully.

To be fully known? You know the full canon, yes. That's what it means to know the full canon.

It's not specifically speaking, it's speaking of something that's partial to something that's full.

Okay, so to be fully known means what again? I'll write this down.

Well, it means to, it means to be fully known. It doesn't, see you're reading stuff into it.

I just, I haven't read anything yet. What's it say? You know, what does the phrase fully known mean? We don't know in part anymore. We don't know in part. Don't know what in part?

Well, that's the, that's the question. If you say it's the end of the age,.

Then what is it that's in part? Okay, wait, look, I'm trying to ask you what the phrase to be fully known means in the context. Yeah, and I'm saying what it means.

I'm not understanding what you're saying it means. The phrase is a comparison of something that is completed or fulfilled or matured, which is what you see it from verse 10,.

11, 12, and so on. Okay, so what does the phrase to be fully known mean? It means to not know partially. Okay, to be fully known is something that's passive. It means that we are fully known by something else or someone else, not for us to know something.

To be fully known, it's passive tense. It doesn't work. Why not? To be fully known means it's a passive. I'm fully known by someone else to be fully known. If I know, if I know fully something that I'm the one doing the knowing, it's in the passive here to be fully known.

Okay, so it's, I shall know in part, right? So that one is active. Then I shall know that one is,.

Let's see. To be fully known, it's passive voice means the action is occurring elsewhere to the person. So that means that you're fully known. You just said it was active voice, which is the opposite.

You said that you're knowing something. That's not what the text says.

So I know in part, that's the current, that's right now. In all three of these illustrations, you have a now and a later, all right? Now and then. Now I know in part, later I shall know even as I'm fully known.

So someone fully knows with a complete knowledge,.

It goes from partial to completion. You're not making any sense. So you said, you said that to be fully known means to know something fully from the person who is known. So a Christian then knows something fully.

That's what you said. So what is the Christian.

Knowing fully then? Yeah, so what it is, see this, and this is the difference, Matt. It's because you're, the way you're approaching it, you're approaching this with preconceived ideas of what fully known must mean and face-to-face must mean.

I'm looking at the context and saying, these are illustrations. I'm not reading into them a personal encounter or something more. It doesn't mean then, what does it mean? It means that something is completed.

So no, to be known, to be fully known means what? Well, I'm not, see, this is the thing. I'm not.

Going to break this up from its context and then try to interpret it. You have to take the full context, and the context is a comparison between now, know in part, then fully known as unknown.

Okay, what does it mean to be fully known? To have it complete. It would be a complete.

Knowledge. So partial knowledge to complete knowledge. Just like the child is partial to.