[03/24/19]
The final point I would make in regard to Truth at this juncture is that it is, like God, unchangeable. It is not subject to negotiation. It is not a matter of opinion. Truth is that which, no matter how greatly you believe the opposite, no matter how loudly and vehemently you deny it, no matter how consistently you reject its validity, continues unaltered.
The simplest example from the world of concretes would be that of gravity, I suppose. In keeping with my previous analogy of flight, gravity is a major reason why simply believing one can fly proves insufficient. Gravity is true – I’ll not raise it to the level of capital-T Truth, but it is true. No matter how greatly you seek to deny it, it continues to be exactly what it is. Or, to make the example more concrete, perhaps we could take the chair for our example. This is more often used as a model of faith, but then faith can’t function apart from Truth anyway. So, take the chair. Assuming it is solidly constructed and stably situated, the truth is that if you lower yourself into its seat, it will hold you. You will not fall over or fall down, unless it be due to your own ineptitude or infirmity. The chair, properly realized and properly utilized, proves to be a chair, no matter how doubtful you may have been of that fact before lowering yourself into it. The poor man suffering delusions or hallucinations who either cannot see or cannot recognize the chair for what it is does not alter the chair for his lack. Even a blind man, who cannot see the chair at all could yet seat himself in it and discover its reality, its truth.
The same applies to truths of a more ephemeral nature. Abstract truths, if they are True, will not be subject to opinion. They will hold regardless what you think about the matter. Here, I should have to observe, is a basic premise of scientific inquiry. The reason the scientific method works, when it is actually used, is that if one’s theory is correct, the results will consistently show that to be the case. It matters not who runs the experiment. The result will be the same. If this is not the case, then the experiment proves nothing. The theory may yet hold, but there is as yet no evidence for its validity. If no experiment has been devised whatsoever, then again, the thing may be true, but there is no evidence yet to support such a claim. Of course, if the experiment demonstrates something completely contrary to theoretical expectations, then we can reasonably conclude that said theory was wrong. It was not true.
In matters of theology, or its sister philosophy, as these are both involved in the pursuit of understanding Truth, this same principle holds. If what you have posited as True is in fact True, then your partner down the hall cannot arrive at some alternate conclusion on the matter and also have posited Truth. If my theology insists that God is Good, and yours insists that God is Evil, then at least one of us must necessarily be incorrect. If I say God is True, and you point to an example in which you perceive God to be lying then again, one of us, at minimum, MUST be wrong. Either God is not True, because HE has been proven a liar by your example, or your example is in some way invalid and therefore your conclusion is likewise invalid.
Of course, any such pursuits MUST begin from the premise that there is such a thing as Truth, and, if those pursuits are to have any hope of fruition, they must also hold to the premise that Truth is absolute and unchanging. No other sort of Truth could ever be discoverable or describable. I will maintain, and particularly on the evidence of post-modern society with its insistence on truth being negotiable, that such a conception (or lack of conception) of truth leaves one hopeless. Life cannot have meaning apart from Truth. Humanity cannot tolerate life without meaning, nor should it. Humanity was created for a greater end than nihilistic futility.
Now, having brought up the matter of scientific inquiry, I want to include a bit of an anecdote here, simply because I find myself being hit with any number of serendipitous inputs as I begin this effort. In this case, it happens my wife and I were watching an old Indiana Jones movie the other night, the one with the Holy Grail. A Hollywood film, I have to say, is not the place I would turn to for expositions of Truth, but in this case, there was one, somewhat throwaway line, which spoke voluminous truth. We see Indie in front of a classroom full of students, lecturing on the topic of archaeology. Presumably, then, this is a college class. At any rate, he makes this statement to the class. “Here, we are pursuing facts. Facts are not truths. If you’re interested in truth, enter the philosophy class down the hall.” I’m paraphrasing from memory, but you get the gist of it.
This has long been a sense I have of the divide between religious pursuits and scientific pursuits. I suppose, philosophy having at one time been queen of the sciences, we should have to make exception for that discipline, but in general, where science has its place is in discovering and describing facts. These facts are discoverable because of what is True, but science can only take us so far toward Truth. It can explain the how. It can describe the what. It can trace the when. Add history into the fold and we can even say that these disciplines can supply the who. What they cannot do is arrive at the why. Oh, they can perhaps tell us the reasons why some historical person undertook such and such an action, assuming said person left record of his reasoning, and assuming those records are accurate. But, as to more fundamental questions of why, such as why humanity? Why earth? Why existence at all? On these, science is unfit to speak, incapable of speaking. I would also insist that on matters of morality, the disciplines of science are to no purpose. They may be able to demonstrate how a thing is to be achieved, but they cannot – as has been proven over and over to our detriment – address the question of whether it should be done; not with any sense of being authoritative.
I will observe one other bit of serendipity, while I’m in the mood to pursue such thoughts. That is, as is so often the case, a bit of congruity between my pursuits in these studies, and things that arise in materials from Ligonier Ministries. Usually, it is something that arises in Table Talk that catches my eyes because a) I am reading that pretty much any given morning other than Sundays, and b) what I read happens to coincide with what I have been studying in recent proximity. In this case, it was actually the backside of an envelope that served the purpose. In truth, I’ve not opened the envelope, because it’s clearly a donation seeking missive. But, across the back, in large white font on black background is emblazoned the quote, “If God is not sovereign, God is not God.” This, to nobody’s surprise, is a declaration made by R. C. Sproul. But, as I have set forth in my opening, first case fundamental, that is exactly my starting point. I suppose it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that I have not so much reached this conclusion as absorbed it from years of Ligonier materials, and I cannot entirely rule out such as being the case.
That is, at least in part, why I have undertaken to pursue this particular study, to attempt to lay out my own case for those things I have discerned to be Truth. That is to say that as I go along, my hope is to avoid mere supposition, and to establish bedrock Truth. As to the matter of God’s sovereignty and its implications, I am satisfied that, however much my views may have been informed by Dr. Sproul over the years, they are not the sole basis for having arrived at this conclusion. It is a Truth. It is a Truth that would remain True whether I or Dr. Sproul believed it or not.
I have to say, though, that there is strong urge in me to preserve that envelope for prominent display in my office. It is at one and the same time a matter so clearly central to my understanding and belief, and at the same time a thing of which I need constant reminding. It is rather like that doctrine of Providence that was so integral to my arrival at faith. Indeed, I would say the two are integrally connected. Providence could not be providence except God is in fact sovereign. But, the fact that He is means He is in control. He is not merely aware of my every circumstance, but has arranged it, and though it ranges miles and miles ahead of my place in this particular study, it must be said that the God I have come to know arranged it for my good, whether I am at this juncture able to recognize that good or not. God’s Good, after all, is companion to Truth. Like Truth, it does not alter because my understanding is imperfect. God does not alter because my understanding is imperfect. It is my imperfect understanding which must be altered to properly perceive and acknowledge and worship the unchanging, perfect God Who Is. Happy Sunday.
