chris cobb

What if one considers God the ultimate reality? Would that then mean that truth is whatever God says it is? How do we say something like 2 + 2 = 4 is true if not by some form of correspondence theory? Maybe I'm missing something.

That's a good point Darby, but the one thing we can not yield is the ultimacy of God over reality, logic, proofs, man's observations about the natural world, etc. I think that we have to recognize that we have [at least] two concepts signified by the word 'truth'. One involves the garden-variety kind, such as mathematics. The other is the transcendent kind rooted in the Word of God and the nature of God.

One of my profs way back when styled the former as "observed patterns of consistency." I think that is a good perspective.

I realize that the word 'truth' will continue to be used in the garden-variety sense (including by me). But we must avoid the mistake of lumping together that which is true in an ultimate sense with that which is observed to be consistent based upon man's interpretations of the world around him.

In my next post, you will see an example of confusing the two. Even when people formally acknowledge the distinction, you still see them ascribing to man's observations the same authority that they ascribe to ultimate truth. Big mistake.

chris,

Let me first compliment the grace with which you have written these posts. This certainly is a bit of a volatile topic but you've kept it from incendiary statements. I was on Cedarville's campus today, and must say the morale seems high...the Truth/Certainty issue seems to be playing out a bit behind the scenes. Also, Voddie Baucham's message this morning did not waffle one bit over the nature of truth and didn't seek to redefine things to be more palatable to the culture.

However, I do agree that this is our opportunity to sharpen our thinking. Postmodern/Modern conversations (along with ripple effects...like the Cedarville Situation) give us the opportunity to evaluate what we are saying, and organize it more thoughtfully. We'd be remiss if we don't take advantage of that opportunity!

Just a couple of thoughts that came to my mind:

1. We can totally perceive things incorrectly. (This may be where you are going next.) The entire field of optical illusions is built on the lack of accuracy to our perceptions. A Biblical example would be that 1,000 years is merely a vapor (equal to one day, in "real time."), though it seems to be a long time to us.

2. God's Word has a unique element that mine does not. ("Duh statement" of the century!) He not only speaks that which is true, when He speaks it, it becomes true. He says, "Let there be Light" and it comes to be (Genesis 1:3). He spoke to a dead man Lazarus as if he were alive ("Lazarus, Come forth!"), and it caused him to be alive (John 11). He spoke His Word into my dead, hardened, deaf heart, and He caused it quickened me to life by seeing the beauty of the message of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4). Therefore, He not only speaks to what is already true, His speech creates truth. Astounding!

3. Has God not thwarted our mortal minds, even in math. When looking at the Trinity, has God not basically said, "1+1+1=1"? We try to wrap our minds around it (assuming each part is less than one, or the equation should be three), but a mathematical solution will fall short of what God's Word teaches. One Father (Who is fully Divine) and One Son (Who is fully Divine) and One Holy Spirit (Who is fully Divine) is One God.

I was just asked yesterday, "Do you consider the Bible the 'sole authority' or the 'ultimate authority?'" (Obviously, not by an unbeliever, they don't typically quibble over such minutiae.) After much discussion, I still don't see the brother's point. If AUTHORITY is the critical word, don't both statements basically mean the same thing? Ultimately, there can only be one authority. We can not serve multiple masters. We may gain information from a variety of sources (with flawed observations) but all of this must be submitted to Truth which is not discovered, but which is revealed!

Danny, I expect the sole versus ultimate issue has to do with the modern bromide, "All truth is God's truth." If you consider that all truth is God's truth, then at the end of the day the Bible is the ultimate authority, but not the sole authority. Personally, I consider that particular statement to be false, unless you qualify it in some way, such as, "All True Truth is God's Truth" . My next post, which I'll put up Thursday, will begin to deal with this. Personally, I consider the Bible to be both the ultimate and the sole authority, with any other (lower) authority having to gain its legitimacy from Scripture.
I know that last statement has the appearance of being self-contradictory, but I think at some point I will be able to explain myself. I have a pretty radical definition of truth to propose in several posts...