Truth and Proof – Part 2 – The Starting Point

R.D.Fierro

Episode 142 – Truth and Proof – Part 2 – The Starting Point

Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.

Script:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Second Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17, New International Version

********

VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue with our recently started series on Anchored by Truth that we’re calling “Truth and Proof.” As we mentioned last time this series was inspired by a teaching series that Dr. Gregg Alexander did for his Sunday school class and a few years ago. As just about everyone knows, the Christian faith in America has been subjected to more challenges in the last decade than probably in the first two centuries of the country’s existence. So, we wanted to follow Dr. Alexander’s lead and do a series on what is often called “apologetics” – in essence the defense of the Christian faith. Apologetics helps us demonstrate that the Christian faith has a firm basis in reason and evidence. To help us explore this very important topic today in the studio we have RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books, in the studio today. RD, would you like to remind everyone why you felt that it was so important for us to do this series?

RD: Well, as we mentioned last time on Anchored by Truth, we live in an age where our historical cultural consensus has shifted. Some commentators have said that we are now living in a “post-Christian” world. For people who are not believers this means that they live in a world that has gone “beyond” the constraints and “narrowness” of Christianity. Mainline churches are experiencing declines not only in membership, but in influence on society, government, education, family, and the culture as a whole. And as we look around us we see that young people are far more consumed by what’s happening with popular celebrities than what happened with Jesus when He ministered on this earth. We also see that more people are more concerned about temporary pleasures than their eternal destiny. It seems that everywhere our societies are all about money, entertainment, free expression, anything goes – everywhere it’s Babylon: the city of Satan, where it’s “all about me.” This is obviously is dangerous to individual destinies but it is also dangerous to the destiny of our communities and nation. That’s why it’s so important for the church to remind everyone around us that this kind of cultural calculus is not only dangerous, it’s unsustainable. But we in the church need to remember that our primary mission is one of reconciliation – reconciliation between men and God. So we don’t want to lose sight of the need to marry our intellectual defense of Christianity with our intentional concern for the welfare of our neighbors.

VK: That’s a great point. At the close of our last episode we mentioned that we cannot help people understand the basis for our faith without reminding ourselves of the importance of both head knowledge and heart concerns. There’s an old saying that “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Or, as Dr. Alexander put it in one of his lessons, knowing what is in our heads is not as important as the One Who is in our hearts. We will never assist the Holy Spirit in drawing anyone to Christ if we rely only on the objective and academic facts of Christianity. Christians called to the ministry of reconciliation, i.e., bridging the gap between Christ and those in need of knowing Him, and pulling the one who is unwilling toward the One who is always willing. And we must do these things as the apostles taught us – with patience, diligence, and love.

RD: I think that’s always an important reminder. The primary reason apologetics is an important area of study is because of its relevance to salvation. And, unfortunately, that’s never been truer than in this day and time. We live in an age where our historical cultural consensus has shifted. In this “post-Christian” world many people who are not believers don’t see the relevance of Christianity to their daily lives. They think that they make whatever choices they make and their will never be a day of reckoning. Unfortunately, they are completely unaware of Jesus’ warning in Matthew, chapter 7, verses 13 and 14 which says we need to “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

VK: But it doesn’t have to be this way, does it? The power of the gospel is to change the destiny of individuals and the trajectory of societies. Now, I know that Dr. Alexander is quite of a fan of Norman Geisler who was one of the premier apologists of the last 50 years and you share much of his admiration for Geisler don’t you? And both of you particularly like Geisler’s views on why apologetics is important to the church. Why don’t you share a little of that with our audience?

RD: According to Geisler we study apologetics for three reasons: First, God commands it in the Bible. 1st Peter 3:15 is probably the most frequently cited verse on why we need to arm ourselves with why, as the verse puts it, “we have a hope that lies within us.” But another verse is 2nd Corinthians 10:5 – “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” There’s also Philippians 1:16 – “. . . I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” And Jude 3 – “I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” And these are just a sample of verses that command us to be prepared to give reasons our faith in the gospel.

VK: And not only does God command us to be able to defend our faith – because that’s the basic purpose of apologetics – but Geisler says our human ability to reason also make apologetics necessary.

RD: That’s correct. Geisler says, that the second purpose for apologetics is that reason demands that we do it and this is demonstrated in scripture. Isaiah 1:18 – “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord.” We must discern right from wrong, as we see in 1st John 4:6 – “We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” Again from Geisler: “Socrates said, ‘The unexamined life is not worth living.’ He surely would have been willing to add that the unexamined belief is not worth believing. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Christians to give a reason for their hope. This is part of the great command to love God with all our mind, as well as our heart and soul (Matt. 22:36–37).”

VK: So, the first reason we pursue apologetics is because the Bible commands it. And the second reason is because reason, really nothing more than good common sense, compels us to do so. It’s hard for human beings to place their trust in something that goes against that common sense. The human facility for logic and reason means that if something doesn’t make good sense most people are far more likely to reject it than accept it.

RD: That’s also correct. And, that feeds directly into the third reason Geisler says we do apologetics: “the world needs it.” People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark.

VK: And we often point out on Anchored by Truth that the belief that there is a “great divide” between faith and reason is a myth. And you agree with that don’t you?

RD: Absolutely. As Dr. Alexander noted, reason can be defined as “all the subjective and personal acts of our mind by which we discover, understand, or seek to demonstrate truth.” If faith is in that which is true, and if reason is the product of the human mind to discover truth, shouldn’t they agree? Aren’t they both ending at the same place? The answer is “Yes,” even for things that the human mind cannot discover, e.g., the Trinity. In that case, faith is not contradictory to reason, but is over and above reason. And in many cases it is reason that precedes faith, for Christianity is based on the actual historic Christ being the actual Christ of the Bible, and, therefore, we do not have “blind faith,” but faith which is supported by reasoning and reasons. We study the Bible in order to understand (reason) what we believe (faith). Reason doesn’t necessarily cause faith, but faith is not opposed to reason.

VK: I think that’s such an important point. The world, meaning the secular world, does not have a monopoly on reason. In fact some of the greatest thinkers and scientists of all time were devout Christians. So where do you want to start for today?

RD: Well, with a seemingly simple point: truth is knowable. Now, I know that seems simplistic but in our time not only is Christianity frequently under attack but so is the basic concept that truth is absolute and knowable. But, if our ultimate goal is to establish the truth of Christianity, we better start by talking about what truth is, and what we can know about it.

VK: And the fact that truth is absolute and knowable is not just exclusive to Christianity, is it? Even non-Christian philosophers have recognized the importance of truth in securing knowledge, haven’t they?

RD: Absolutely. One of those philosophers was Aristotle who was born in that Intertestamental Period in the year 384 BC. I mention him because he taught us how to think properly about reality, and, therefore, about the question of God’s existence. Aristotle discovered principles that are the undeniable principles of reality – principles that are referred to as the first principles of knowledge. Using these principles he formalized a system of correct thinking that we call logic. Logic is an instrument of human knowledge; it is a skillful use of the principles that govern how the mind works – and how God’s mind works. Logic imitates God’s mind, and from it we can not only learn about what we are, but what we should be. Aristotle tells us “Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes,” and “Truth is what is, and is not what is not.” This is the starting point for the correspondence theory of truth, i.e., truth is absolute and corresponds to what is real.

VK: And you have said that Aristotle’s influence on Christian apologetics is immensely important. He entered Plato’s academy in about 367 BC and stayed there until Plato’s death in 347 BC. He was the personal teacher of Alexander the Great beginning in about 342 BC. And because Aristotle was so influential on Alexander the Great as Alexander’s influence spread so did Aristotle’s, Aristotle’s teaching on the physical sciences, psychology, philosophy, and logic spread along with the Greek language and culture throughout the known world. In Anchored by Truth’s series on the Intertestamental period we pointed out how God used the spread of the Greek language and culture as part of His preparation for Jesus’ arrival into the world.

RD: I agree. And one way in which Aristotle’s influence was felt on apologetics was Aristotle’s influence on Thomas Aquinas. But let’s back up for just a second. Aristotle’s view of God came from his view of the nature of reality, called metaphysics, but his view of “god(s)” certainly was not that of the Creator as understood by the Jews. Aristotle didn’t have at his disposal the personal revelation of God as it had been given to the Jews. Therefore, he understood God in the Romans 1:19-20 sense as being a logical necessity in order to explain the cosmos. Aristotle did not understand the God of love and concern for creation – he simply saw “God” as necessary, and he felt very comfortable proving it. And, for Aristotle, “god” was Pure Thought, Pure Intelligence.

VK: So, how does Aristotle tie into Aquinas?

RD: Because Aristotle’s work – much of which was lost for centuries – ended up being the launching pad for the philosophy – not the theology – of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas (1225-1274) considered himself indebted to Aristotle for the principles of his philosophy, but Aquinas was not a “Christianized Aristotle.” He did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when the revealed Truth of Christianity required it. Aristotle was concerned with what the world is and how it functions. Aquinas was more concerned to explain why it exists. And one advantage Aquinas had that Aristotle did not was access to the Old Testament. Aquinas undoubtedly refuted Aristotelianism for at least one reason: the proclamation by God of His Name in Exodus 3:14 – “I AM WHO I AM.”

VK: As a reminder to our audience, God’s proclamation “I am who I am” was a direct response to Moses asking God for His name. Moses was concerned that if went down into Egypt to say to the Israelites that God had told him to bring freedom to them they would want to know who exactly had sent him to them. So, God answered Moses with what is one of the most famous verses in the Bible: “I am who I am.” In Hebrew this conveyed by the word “Yahweh” and in Greek it’s “Jehovah.” But in addition to Yahweh being God’s name, the term actually tells us something very important. “I am who I am” is a way of God identifying Himself by His unique quality of self-existence. God is the only Being anywhere who is self-existent. All other Beings are dependent on God for their lives and existence including the angels, Satan and his minions, and mankind. But God is not dependent on anyone or anything for His existence. God made that point forcefully to Moses and the Israelites by His declaration at the burning bush. And what you’re saying is that Aquinas knew about that declaration and it’s quite likely that Aristotle did not?

RD: Exactly. Aristotle was not in any way influenced by the writings of some old dead Jew, and he died 322 years before Christ was born. But that didn’t stop Aristotle from being able to arrive at a correct understanding of the nature of truth. Just by using logic and reason Aristotle was able to develop an understanding of truth – that truth is that it is what really is, and it isn’t what really is not. Or said differently, truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is not defined by individual opinion – it is what is even if we can’t accept it, or understand it, or don’t have enough evidence to prove it.

VK: But we can know truth can’t we? And a simple way know that we can know the truth is to begin by following the line of reasoning developed by the French mathematician, Rene’ Descartes [DAY-CART]. Descartes wanted an absolutely rock-solid starting place to begin his understanding of the universe around him. So, simply put Descartes said that he could be sure that he at least existed because if he didn’t he couldn’t be asking the question or answering it. Now, someone might ask, “But what if this thing we call ‘existence’ is just an illusion?” We could reply in the same way that Ravi Zacharias did when he was asked that question. Ravi answered the question with his own question. “And just who is it that is experiencing this illusion?” Descartes put it this way, “I am thinking, therefore I am.” Descartes’ reasoning was that there must be something in existence before that something can do anything. Thinking is doing something. So, Descartes said if I can think then I can be sure that I exist. And that was his starting point to begin establishing a wider understanding of the universe, creation, and existence.

RD: Yes. Descartes was able to find an irrefutable truth to being his reasoning process. And so, like Descartes, by knowing that at least one thing is true we can begin our search for other truths. Geisler puts it this way. “The nature of truth is crucial to the Christian faith. Not only does Christianity claim there is absolute truth (truth for everyone, everywhere, at all times), but it insists that truth about the world (reality) is that which corresponds to the way things really are. For example, the statement “God exists” means that there really is a God . . . Likewise, the claim that “God raised Christ from the dead” means that the dead corpse of Jesus of Nazareth supernaturally vacated its tomb alive a few days after its burial. . . Christian truth claims really correspond to the state of affairs about which they claim . . . Truth can be understood both from what it is and from what it is not.

VK: So, we can know that truth exists but that’s not enough, is it. Geisler also noted that there are many inadequate views of the nature of truth. For instance, truth is not ‘what works.’ That was a popular theory advocated by a well-known pragmatist, William James. James and his followers said that truth is what works. According to James, “Truth is the expedient in the way of knowing. A statement is known to be true if it brings the right results. It is the expedient as confirmed by future experience and effect.” Of course, this doesn’t seem to be how truth is understood in court where an expedient testimony may be perjury. It’s possible to still wonder whether a statement corresponded to the facts. In a court, if a statement does not correspond to the facts, it was not true regardless of whether it’s expedient.

RD: Exactly right. Geisler noted that truth is also not ‘that which coheres.’ Some scholars have suggested that truth is what is internally consistent, i.e., it is coherent. But this is also an inadequate definition. Empty statements hang together, even though they are devoid of truth content. ‘All wives are married women’ is internally consistent, but it is empty. It tells us nothing about reality. The statement would be true, even if there were no wives. It really means, ‘If there is a wife, then she must be married.’ But it does not inform us that there is a wife anywhere in the universe. A set of false statements also can be internally consistent. If several witnesses conspire to misrepresent the facts, their story may cohere better than if they were honestly trying to reconstruct the truth. But it still is a lie. At best, coherence is a negative test of truth. Statements are wrong if they are inconsistent, but not necessarily true if they are.

VK: So, to sum up, “Truth about reality is what corresponds to the way things really are: ‘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. Falsehood, then, is what does not correspond to the way things really are.” This means that if it lacks proper correspondence, it is false.”

RD: Yes. And another important point about this correspondence view of truth is that it cannot be denied without using it. In other words, as we put it in our “Lord of Logic” series the correspondence view of truth is affirmed in dissent. In other words the premise must be true because an argument that attempts to rebut the premise must presume the truth of the premise in the attempted rebuttal.

VK: I think we’re going to need an example of what you’re thinking about.

RD: Here’s an example of a statement that cannot be rationally denied. “Human beings use language to communicate.” If someone were to try to deny that statement they would have to use some kind of language to present their denial. As soon as they did so they are proving the statement is true. So, there is literally no way the statement can be reasonably or rationally denied. The same thing is true of the correspondence view of truth. Anyone who tried to deny it assumes their view corresponds to reality, i.e., those who deny it in theory, use it in practice. One may say, “but that’s just your view of truth.” Your response could be, “does that statement correspond to reality?”

VK: So, absolute truth means it is true for all people, all places, all the time. The term “relative truth” isn’t truth at all, for it claims that something is true for some people, but not all people; or true in some places, but not all places; or some time, but not all the time. Truth is not “what works;” what is cohesive, consistent, or coherent Truth must have these qualities, but these things do not make something true. Truth is not what is comprehensive; not what feels good; not what the majority think or want. Truth is not what is sincere, for it is possible to be sincerely wrong.

RD: Yes. And one final important point is that there are biblical arguments for the correspondence view of truth. The ninth commandment is, “you shall not give false testimony about your neighbor” (Exodus 2:16), i.e., tell it like it is. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 – “You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.” So, the Bible clearly affirms that truth is not only corresponds to reality but that it is possible to know the truth.

VK: Not only that but we rely on the fact that truth is what corresponds to reality every day of our lives. In our daily conversation, we might say “check out the facts.” And in courtrooms all over the country the existence and knowability of truth is affirmed every time someone swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We use correspondence as the rule for truth in our daily lives and we use it all the time.

RD: Right. Now at this point I’d like to note that anyone who would like to investigate this topic of truth and its role in apologetics might want to check out The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics which was written by Norman Geisler. I have a copy in my library and I know Dr. Alexander does as well. And before we close I’d like to recognize that some of the material we’re discussing in this series can sound pretty esoteric but today Christians who want to have an impact on their families, much less the culture, need to be able to provide intelligent answers to skeptics because they’re all about us.

VK: So, in essence, our goal is to help listeners understand how to contend for their faith with certainty and confidence. We’re making no assumptions whatsoever of what anyone may, or may not, already know. We want to show that any thinking person can prove the existence of God. This is the central truth of Romans, chapter 1, verse 18-20. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” This sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer of praise of Adoration for the Creator God who set the cosmos into motion and established a home on the earth for His people as He prepares them for an eternity with Him in heaven.

---- PRAYER FOR THE SPIRITUALLY LOST

VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.”

If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!”

(Bible Quotes from the New International Version)

Second Timothy, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17, New International Version

https://www.listennotes.com/e/70a137e4f65240e1844c9d6807f0ba66/