I have been thinking a lot about truth lately. Can truth be known? Is truth exclusive? Does truth depend upon ones point of view?
The first step is to define truth. Truth is what corresponds to its referent. Truth about reality is what corresponds to the way things really are. Truth is “telling it like it is.” This correspondence applies to abstract realities as well as actual ones. There are mathematical truths. There are also truths about ideas. In each case there is a reality, and truth accurately expresses it.[1]
The next step is to define non-truth. Falsehood, then, is what does not correspond. It tells it like it is not, misrepresenting the way things are. The intent behind the statement is irrelevant. If it lacks proper correspondence, it is false.[2]
Allow me to illustrate. 1+1=2. The statement “1+1” corresponds to the statement “2” that makes this a true statement. If we change the statement to 1+1=4 then we end up with a “false” or “untrue” statement. This is because the statement “1+1” does not correspond to “4”. This concept also holds true for non math applications it is just simpler to illustrate using math.
Another way to illustrate this is:
Suppose that I bought a six pack of beer took it home, set down on my couch and proceeded to drink five of them. At some point after this my wife comes home and smells the beer on my breath and asked me “How many beers have you drunk?” At this point I decide that “truth” is defined as “what works for me” not as “that which corresponds to its referent”. And I reply “two”. Now this “truth” works for me because she will not be mad at me for drinking too much, but this “truth” has a drawback. Let us suppose at this point my wife looks in the fridge and sees a six pack container that contains one, not three, beers. This is what I call the point where that which works for me meets that which corresponds to its referent and since two does not correspond to five empty slots in the six pack container the truth that worked for me did not work for her and now I am sleeping on the couch.
In the illustration above the truth that worked for me was not just “non-truth” but was in fact a lie. What made it a lie was intent, not merely the statement being factually inaccurate but the deception behind the inaccurate statement. For example 2000 years ago the people who taught that the earth was flat were not telling a lie, they were making a truth claim based upon inaccurate data. The statement was still false but not necessarily a lie. By the way believing that the earth was flat did not make it so. The earth was just as round then as it is now. The point being that sincere belief in a non truth does not impact reality only the way in which one interacts with reality. This leads us to some interesting conclusions. The sincere belief that the world is flat will not adversely impact your ability to live on the earth. The sincere belief that the container of sulfuric acid is water will. The point being that holding a “sincere belief” has no merit.
Truth claims are the basis for belief. Belief is how we function in life. Everything that we do or do not do is based on what we believe. Permit me illustrate. This morning I took a shower. Before I turned on the water I held the belief that turning the knob would cause water to flow. I held this belief because I have prior experience with doing this; I also have a vague understanding of how water gets to my shower from the water facility in our town. If I did not believe that water would come out when I turned on the fixture then I would not have turned the knob. My belief that water would come out when I turned on the knob was based upon the truth claim that if I pay my water bill then the city will not turn off my water. This truth claim is valid because paying ones water bill corresponds to receiving water. In this case a valid truth claim plus belief equals action resulting in a non-smelly me. The knowledge that I held in this matter, namely prior experience and a vague understanding of my towns water delivery system had no impact upon the fact that when I turned the knob water came out. In other words my belief had no merit. The merit was in the object of my belief. My knowledge had no impact upon the ability of the object of my belief to perform its function; conversely if I had a lack of belief that also would not have impacted the ability of the object of my lack of belief to perform its function.
Let me illustrate. A soldier is driving on a road in Iraq. The soldier has been told that there are no IEDs on the rout that he is traveling. The soldier believes the report. An IED explodes as he passes it on the road. All of the facts that led to the report that there were not any IEDs did not impact the truth that there was one. The belief in the report did not impact the truth that there was one. If truth were subjective in any way then the report would have negated the IED from existence.
Truth is exclusive. Non- truth is inclusive to the point that it only excludes that which corresponds to the referent. Permit me to illustrate. 1+1=2 is true because it corresponds to its referent. If =2 is that to which the statement refers any statement that does not correspond to =2 is not true.
That is all well and good but what does any of this have to do with Christ?
Jesus made the claim that He is the way, the truth and the life… (John 14:6). This is a truth claim and a claim of exclusivity. This statement can only be valid if truth is knowable and exclusive. Truth can only be knowable if it corresponds to its referent. If truth corresponds to its referent then truth is exclusive. If truth is exclusive then Christ is the way, the truth and the life.
[1]Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (742). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
[2]Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (742). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Romans 12
I intend to return to the Romans study on Monday, unless of course, God changes my mind between now and then.
More than likely I will only be posting the Romans study on Mondays, I may try to post twice a week, but as I am preparing to start school at Texas State San Marcos my time will become even more limited.
More than likely I will only be posting the Romans study on Mondays, I may try to post twice a week, but as I am preparing to start school at Texas State San Marcos my time will become even more limited.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Battle Drills
What is a battle drill? In the army we have what are called battle drills. They are actions that are taken for a given situation and they are well rehearsed so that they become second nature. Examples of battle drills would be react to contact, react to indirect fire or clear a room. An example of actions to be taken would be get down, seek cover, and return fire. These actions are rehearsed to the point that they become reflexive in the situation that they were intended for.
In our Christian walk we should develop battle drills to combat situations that we encounter. For example, if one has a problem with anger memorize verses that deal with anger, rehearse them, and make them second nature. That way when a situation arises where one could become angry those verses come immediately to mind.
One of the first actions in any battle drill that we develop to deal with our weakness should be pray. Ask or strength and guidance to deal with the temptation. If we fail the test then we utilize 1 John 1:9 and move on from there. If we are not in fellowship we will not pass any test.
Conclusion
As believers in Jesus Christ we are in a war. If we do not learn to put on our armor and use the weapons of our warfare then we will become casualties or be taken prisoner by the enemy.
In 2 Corinthians 10:5 we read “we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,” are you taking every thought captive or are your thoughts taking you captive?
Are you serving as a soldier? Or are you AWOL from the conflict?
In our Christian walk we should develop battle drills to combat situations that we encounter. For example, if one has a problem with anger memorize verses that deal with anger, rehearse them, and make them second nature. That way when a situation arises where one could become angry those verses come immediately to mind.
One of the first actions in any battle drill that we develop to deal with our weakness should be pray. Ask or strength and guidance to deal with the temptation. If we fail the test then we utilize 1 John 1:9 and move on from there. If we are not in fellowship we will not pass any test.
Conclusion
As believers in Jesus Christ we are in a war. If we do not learn to put on our armor and use the weapons of our warfare then we will become casualties or be taken prisoner by the enemy.
In 2 Corinthians 10:5 we read “we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,” are you taking every thought captive or are your thoughts taking you captive?
Are you serving as a soldier? Or are you AWOL from the conflict?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Was physical death a result of Adams fall?
"God also said, “Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This food will be for you, for all the wildlife of the earth, for every bird of the sky, and for every creature that crawls on the earth—everything having the breath of life in it. ⌊I have given⌋ every green plant for food.” And it was so. God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. Evening came, and then morning: the sixth day." (Genesis 1:29-31, HCSB)
1. From the passage above we can clearly see that plant death existed before the fall.
2. If plants and their fruit did not die then they could not be eaten and digested.
3. From the passage above we can clearly see that the function of eating was for food, not for pleasure.
4. The purpose of food is to sustain life.
5. From this we can infer the potential, but not the necessity for human and animal death.
6. No prohibition to eating meat was recorded; only the positive statement of plants being what is intended to be eaten. God did not give the positive command to eat meat until Noah and after the flood.
7. If animals, birds and insects did not eat meat before the flood then when one of them died they could only be removed from nature by roting as there could be no scavengers.
"The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden to work it and watch over it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”" (Genesis 2:15-17, HCSB) "
וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת׃“(Genesis 2:17, AFAT)”
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it—dying thou dost die.’" (Genesis 2:17, YLT)
but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die. (Genesis 2:17, LITV)
"ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν, οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ, ἧ δ̓ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε." (Genesis 2:17, LXX)
1. Out of ten different translations only Young’s Literal Translation, The Literal Translation of the Bible and the Septuagint translate the Hebrew as “dying you will die”.
2. The literal Hebrew words used are “dying you will die”, not “you will surly die”
3. “You will surly die” is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew, although I still think that “dying you will die” is the better translation.
4. The fact and necessity for plant death was established from Genesis 1:29-31
5. In order to understand the consequences of disobedience Adam would have to understand the concept of death.
6. The death in view here is both spiritual and physical death, with the emphasis being on spiritual death.
7. The thought being conveyed in Gen. 2:17 is “dyeing physically you will die spiritually.
8. Adam clearly understood the command and the consequences.
9. My understanding of this is not settled and is open to modification.
My conclusion is, based upon my understanding of the text, that the potential, but not the necessity for physical death existed before Adam sinned and that as a result of the fall both the potential and necessity of physical and spiritual death resulted. Only believers in the rapture generation will not have the necessity of physical death.
1. From the passage above we can clearly see that plant death existed before the fall.
2. If plants and their fruit did not die then they could not be eaten and digested.
3. From the passage above we can clearly see that the function of eating was for food, not for pleasure.
4. The purpose of food is to sustain life.
5. From this we can infer the potential, but not the necessity for human and animal death.
6. No prohibition to eating meat was recorded; only the positive statement of plants being what is intended to be eaten. God did not give the positive command to eat meat until Noah and after the flood.
7. If animals, birds and insects did not eat meat before the flood then when one of them died they could only be removed from nature by roting as there could be no scavengers.
"The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden to work it and watch over it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”" (Genesis 2:15-17, HCSB) "
וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת׃“(Genesis 2:17, AFAT)”
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it—dying thou dost die.’" (Genesis 2:17, YLT)
but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die. (Genesis 2:17, LITV)
"ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν, οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ, ἧ δ̓ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε." (Genesis 2:17, LXX)
1. Out of ten different translations only Young’s Literal Translation, The Literal Translation of the Bible and the Septuagint translate the Hebrew as “dying you will die”.
2. The literal Hebrew words used are “dying you will die”, not “you will surly die”
3. “You will surly die” is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew, although I still think that “dying you will die” is the better translation.
4. The fact and necessity for plant death was established from Genesis 1:29-31
5. In order to understand the consequences of disobedience Adam would have to understand the concept of death.
6. The death in view here is both spiritual and physical death, with the emphasis being on spiritual death.
7. The thought being conveyed in Gen. 2:17 is “dyeing physically you will die spiritually.
8. Adam clearly understood the command and the consequences.
9. My understanding of this is not settled and is open to modification.
My conclusion is, based upon my understanding of the text, that the potential, but not the necessity for physical death existed before Adam sinned and that as a result of the fall both the potential and necessity of physical and spiritual death resulted. Only believers in the rapture generation will not have the necessity of physical death.
Monday, July 20, 2009
How we fight
With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
Our fight is in two arenas, we fight through prayer and we fight by our outward witness. When we are tested we hold up and give glory to God. Others will see this and as they see our lives they may come to God consciousness. And perhaps we would then be able to share the gospel with them.
In Matthew 5:44 we read “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”
Through prayer we can participate in battles occurring all over the world, or right here in our own back yard.
How do we know what to pray? Study Gods word and as you do you will learn how and what to pray. Attend prayer meetings and you will discover needs of others. Become partakers in their struggles and rejoice in their victories. And allow them to do the same for you.
As we become transformed by Gods word our actions to others will start to change as will our reactions to them. I recall hearing about a meeting between a pro-abortion and an anti-abortion leader. I do not recall their names. What I read was from the pro-abortionist’s perspective. She had stated that when she met with her adversary she expected fire and brimstone, but instead that person shared the gospel with her and that she found that person to be genuinely concerned about her as a person. Perhaps if more Christians were like that we would make more headway against this world
Our fight is in two arenas, we fight through prayer and we fight by our outward witness. When we are tested we hold up and give glory to God. Others will see this and as they see our lives they may come to God consciousness. And perhaps we would then be able to share the gospel with them.
In Matthew 5:44 we read “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”
Through prayer we can participate in battles occurring all over the world, or right here in our own back yard.
How do we know what to pray? Study Gods word and as you do you will learn how and what to pray. Attend prayer meetings and you will discover needs of others. Become partakers in their struggles and rejoice in their victories. And allow them to do the same for you.
As we become transformed by Gods word our actions to others will start to change as will our reactions to them. I recall hearing about a meeting between a pro-abortion and an anti-abortion leader. I do not recall their names. What I read was from the pro-abortionist’s perspective. She had stated that when she met with her adversary she expected fire and brimstone, but instead that person shared the gospel with her and that she found that person to be genuinely concerned about her as a person. Perhaps if more Christians were like that we would make more headway against this world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)