Knowing God

1.Packer begins by insisting that "ignorance of God — ignorance both of His ways and of the practice of communion with Him — lies at the root of much that is amiss in Christendom today." Do you agree? What evidence, from your own church experience or personal life, would you offer for or against that diagnosis?

2.Packer distinguishes sharply between knowing *about* God and truly *knowing* God. In his analogy, knowing about a person through their biography is very different from being their personal friend. Where do you honestly locate yourself on that spectrum — and how did you arrive at that assessment?

1.Packer makes the striking point that in Scripture the phrase "knowing God" often has to be understood in reverse — it is God who knows us first, and our knowing Him is a response to that. How does this reframe what it means to pursue knowledge of God? Does it feel more humbling, more comforting, or both?

2.Packer highlights the intimacy implied when God "knows" a person in the biblical sense — citing examples like God knowing Moses by name (Exodus 33) and Jesus knowing His sheep (John 10). What does this kind of knowing involve that mere factual awareness does not?

1.Packer opens by lamenting that modern Christianity tends to think of God as a "cosmic bellhop" — always available, never overwhelming, existing to meet our felt needs. Where do you see this small-God mindset expressed in contemporary worship, prayer, or preaching?

2.Isaiah 40 is the Scripture Packer most leans on in this chapter. Walk through the imagery: God measures the waters in the hollow of His hand, marks off the heavens with a span, holds all nations as a drop in a bucket. What does this cascade of images do to your sense of God's size relative to your current anxieties or problems?

1.Packer argues that the incarnation is "the most profound and far-reaching event that has ever occurred in the history of the world." Why does he make such an absolute claim? Do you find it convincing, and why?

2.Packer describes what he calls the "condescension" of the incarnation — the infinite God stooping to finitude, the eternal entering time, the Creator becoming a creature. How does the picture of God's majesty from the previous chapter heighten the staggering nature of this condescension?

1.Packer argues that God's love is not a vague general benevolence toward humanity in the abstract, but a specific, personal, costly love for real individuals. How does that distinction change the emotional and devotional weight of a phrase like "God loves you"?

2.Packer emphasizes that God's love is not a response to anything lovely or loveable in us — it is spontaneous, free, and rooted in who God is rather than who we are. How does this understanding of love differ from the way love typically works in human relationships, and why does the difference matter?

1.In Chapter 7, Packer insists that understanding God as Lawgiver — holy, righteous, and demanding full obedience — is not the Old Testament version of God to be replaced by grace. Why does he argue that the law is essential background for understanding the gospel? What happens to grace when the law is softened or abandoned?

2.Packer distinguishes between grace understood as mere leniency or tolerance — God turning a blind eye to sin — and grace properly understood as the costly provision of righteousness through Christ. Why is the first version of "grace" actually no grace at all?

1.Packer opens Chapter 9 by noting that many Christians are embarrassed by the wrath of God and try to explain it away. Why do you think the doctrine of divine wrath feels so unacceptable today, even in many churches? What cultural assumptions drive that embarrassment?

2.Packer carefully distinguishes the wrath of God from human anger. He argues that God's wrath is not a loss of emotional control or a petty vindictiveness but rather the steady, settled, righteous opposition of a perfectly holy God to everything that is evil. Why does this distinction matter morally and theologically?

1.The word "jealousy" typically has negative connotations in human experience. Packer argues that God's jealousy is fundamentally different — it is not the insecure jealousy of someone afraid of losing status, but the righteous jealousy of a committed lover who will not share His beloved with a rival. What makes God's jealousy a mark of His love rather than a character flaw?

2.Packer connects God's jealousy to the covenant — God's commitment to His people is like a marriage, and idolatry is like adultery. In what ways do people in your cultural context (and perhaps you yourself) give to created things the devotion, trust, or hope that belongs to God alone?

1.Packer famously argues in these chapters that adoption is "the highest privilege that the gospel offers — higher even than justification." Why does he rank it so highly? Do you find that claim convincing or surprising?

2.Packer distinguishes between the status of "justified sinner" (acquitted in the court of God) and the status of "adopted child" (welcomed into the family of God). Both involve the removal of condemnation, but adoption involves something more. What is that "something more," and why does it matter for daily Christian experience?

1.Packer argues that the shepherd image in Psalm 23 is not a soft sentimental comfort but a robust, concrete promise of God's active guidance through the full range of life's terrain — including "the valley of the shadow of death." What does it mean to trust God as shepherd in a way that is actually strengthened rather than destroyed by hard circumstances?

2.Packer warns against Christians who become obsessed with "finding God's will" in an almost magical sense — looking for signs, fleeces, or feelings — rather than walking in wisdom informed by Scripture and godly counsel. What is the difference between genuine Spirit-led discernment and what Packer might call spiritual superstition?

1.Packer argues that the great goal of knowing God is not merely correct doctrine but a transformed character — what he calls "true godliness." How do you define godliness? How does your definition compare with Packer's emphasis on a person whose life is shaped by a deep, active awareness of God's presence?

2.Packer draws on Micah 6:8 — "to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God" — as a summary of what godly life looks like. Walking humbly *with* God implies ongoing relationship, not mere moral performance. What is the difference between following God's rules and walking with God as a Person?

1.Packer draws on Paul's "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12) to address the experience of prayers that are not answered in the way we hope. How does Paul's story model the right response to unanswered prayer — and how does Packer use it to reframe what "God answering prayer" actually means?

2.Packer argues that God often withholds the relief we ask for in order to give us something greater — a deeper experience of His sufficient grace. The promise "My grace is sufficient for you" (2 Corinthians 12:9) is given *instead of* healing, not *alongside* it. How does that reframe the way you pray about a persistent problem in your own life?

1.Packer argues that present-day knowing of God, profound as it can be, is still a partial and mediated knowing — "we see in a mirror dimly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). How does that acknowledged incompleteness affect how you hold both your theological convictions and your unanswered questions?

2.Packer describes the hope of heaven not primarily as escape from suffering or reunion with loved ones (though those are real) but as the perfection of what has been begun here: unmediated, unhindered knowledge of God face to face. How does framing heaven as the completion of knowing God change how it feels as a hope?

1.Packer's central claim is that there is a life-changing difference between knowing *about* God and actually *knowing* Him. Having read the whole book: do you believe that distinction more deeply now than you did at the start? What has shifted in your understanding?

2.Which single chapter or concept from *Knowing God* had the greatest impact on you, and why? What was it about that particular truth that landed with such force?