chris cobb

Pilate asks the rhetorical, cynical question of Jesus (John 18:38), "What is truth?" It is not coincidental that the question appears in John's gospel only, for only in John's gospel is the answer provided in a remarkably clear way.

The answer as Jesus (through the pen of John) would have us see it is not one to which philosophers would necessarily ascribe. Truth for the philosopher was something that was changeless, something that was not mere appearance or illusion, or something that corresponds with the facts. Each of these notions contains helpful elements, and yet they all remain in the realm of principle.

Jesus identified truth as a Person, namely, Himself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6). In saying that He was claiming more than simply being truth personified. He was saying that He in His essence was Truth in its essence.

(By the way, note that John makes the same radical break with philosophy in his identification of Jesus as the divine Logos, the Word. The Greeks taught the Logos as the rational principle of the cosmos. John teaches the Logos as a Person, a divine Person: Jesus Christ.)

The gist of my point is this: in its ultimate essence truth is not a thing. It is not merely a property, or attribute of reality. Truth is a Person: Jesus Christ.

This definition solves and creates some problems. It solves the problem brought on by the Correspondence Theory, in that reality is no longer posited as ultimate. It creates problems, as noted by Darby, in that our use of the word "truth" can signify vastly different things. We can be speaking of Ultimate Truth, as in "Jesus Christ is God", or a more garden-variety truth such as "I am writing this post on Sunday" or "The earth is the third planet from the sun."

The distinction above is precisely what is ameliorated in the foolish dictum "All truth is God's truth." Ignoring this distinction is part of what causes so many problems in the truth and certainty debate.

I wonder if perhaps it would be helpful to propose a definition of truth (truth of the former kind, not the latter) like this: "Truth is that which adequately corresponds to the revealed Person, words, or works of God." This statement has the advantage of anchoring the idea of Truth where it belongs. It has the disadvantage of being a notion that is totally foolish to the secularist.

Hmmm. Maybe that's not such a bad idea: "But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him..." 1 Co. 2:14, NASB.

Posted by chcobb at 05:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

[Disclaimer: in this post I am not accusing Cedarville of anything. I am just following a train of thought as I explore the Truth and Certainty Debate.]

Are the following true statements?

"One of the best predictors of juvenile behavior is the young person's sense of self-esteem. A proper self-love leads to a lower incidence of teen pregnancy, teen violence, and teen substance abuse."

Psychologists have for years promoted the idea that healthy self-love leads to healthy lives. This observation has become received truth for Christian psychologists. Using the dictum "all truth is God's truth," Christian pastors, psychologists, youth workers, and social workers have bought the self-esteem teaching lock-stock-and-barrel.

It certainly sounds reasonable. For years we have been told that there are studies which demonstrate the truth of the statement. And indeed, if reality is ultimate and God is not, there is no real defense against it (other than to do more studies). Truth ceases to be something special, something Godward, and instead is viewed as the product of men's efforts and observations. Truth becomes what we say it is, rather than what God says it is. And if all truth is God's, then when we call it truth, it is automatically God's. Hence, man defines truth and God must acquiesce.

Back to our opening question. Would you like to hazard a guess as to how many theories of human personality, human development, etc, have been based upon the received truth of self-esteem? How many books have been written or sermons preached on it? Or perhaps what percentage of "Christian" counselors and pastors have been trained in such notions? Perhaps the figure is close to one-hundred percent. It has even found its way into theology, with at least one pastor/theologian seriously proposing that sin should be defined as an inadequate sense of self-esteem.

All truth is God's truth, right? There is just one problem. The balloon has finally popped on the comfortable bubble of self-esteem. Psychologist Roy Baumeister of Florida State University has been blowing rather large holes in the concept for several years now, and has probably destroyed it beyond repair (Baumeister actually studied the studies that were done, and found them quite flawed). Unfortunately, it will take years for the news to get to the church and Christian colleges.

Many would not have believed me about the death of self-esteem if I had merely cited Scripture. Admittedly, one reason they would not have is because the Christian peddlers of the idea have baptized it with Scripture without concern for context or proper hermeneutical principles, and so it might appear to some as simply a battle between two differing Bible-bangers.

But I cited Baumeister to demonstrate that the dictum "all truth is God's truth" does not coexist with Scripture in a subordinate fashion, it instead swallows it up (the phenomenon is called technically, 'integration'). What serious reader of Romans 3:10 and following would have ever bought into the self-esteem notion unless persuaded by the fact that psychological studies had proven the concept of self-esteem, and since all truth is God's, the self-esteem teachings must be God's too?

If truth is that which corresponds to reality, rather than something different (perhaps, transcendent?), then what we are left with respecting truth is nothing more than man's observations, judgments, and interpretations pertaining to reality. These become  ultimate. Hence, man is the ultimate arbiter of truth. In a fallen world with fallen interpreters whose hearts rage against God, I'd say that Truth might take a beating. Might even get hung on a Cross.

So what about the truth of self-esteem? Was it true in the decades of the sixties through 2000, but now it is no longer true? Since all truth is God's, has God changed now that the self-esteem teachings are being debunked?

All truth is God's truth? Really?

Perhaps we had better ask, What is truth?

Posted by chcobb at 04:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The Correspondence Theory of Truth states that a proposition is true if it corresponds to reality. This is a common test for truth. It makes plenty of sense, has the advantage of being readily understood, and seems axiomatic.

However it is fundamentally flawed, in precisely the same way that Descartes' classic answer to skepticism ("I think, therefore I am") is flawed. Both formulations are ultimately useful only in a godless universe.

In both cases, something other than God Himself occupies the position of being ultimate. According to the correspondence theory, the truth of God's existence becomes a feature of reality. No thinking Reformed theologian should ever accept that sort of formulation. In truth, reality (inasmuch as we humans experience it) is a feature of God's existence. Reality is, because God is. Swap those terms, and you have something more ultimate than God.

Descartes has the same problem. He makes himself the ultimate arbiter of his own existence. In other words, mankind is able to make ultimate judgments about truth and existence. Descartes subtly (and I think unintentionally) removed God from the center of all things, and placed man there. His dictum would have been true if he had instead said God thinks, therefore I am, or better, God is, therefore I am. Such a formulation makes man's existence contingent upon God's, and therefore reflects the truth of the matter.

Both of these two observations are significant. When we have traded away the ultimacy of God in order to be collegial, or in order to dialogue with friends or colleagues who may not believe in God, we have given away the store and are not only standing on their turf, we are positing a universe that does not in fact exist.

Cedarville is not alone among Christian institutions who have made this fundamental error, and is due no special opprobrium because of it. We can thank the debates over post-modernism for finally bringing to light a basic flaw in Christian philosophy that has polluted our understanding of truth for several centuries.

Next: some of the goofy results of getting truth wrong...

Posted by chcobb at 03:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The key to understanding the problem in the modern Truth and Certainty debate lies in the way one understands truth. Or to borrow a famous question asked by a harried man who was looking Truth in the face at the time: "What is truth?" [John 18:38].

The traditional answer to that question is known as "The Correspondence Theory of Truth" which states that a proposition is  true if it corresponds to reality. At least for a time, that seemed to be the position espoused by Cedarville as evidenced by Dr. David Mills' brief paper on the topic entitled Definitions of Key Epistemological Terms and Implications for Christian Faith. This paper was at one time available on Cedarville's web site on the Truth and Certainty resources page. I am unable to find it there (or anywhere else on Cedarville's site) any longer, so I can not speak to whether or not the school has changed or refined their understanding of truth, or if perhaps Mills' definition was one of several competing ones.

In any case, the Correspondence Theory of truth proves to be inadequate. It suffers from the same flaw as Descartes famous solution to the doubt of one's own objective existence: "I think, therefore I am."  Both ideas posit something contingent as though it is ultimate, which is a great error. More on this in my next post.

Posted by chcobb at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)