Hi, John. I am enjoying the process of responding to your last post and realize that there is a good deal of material to cover. I have opened a can of worms so that following up on the various loose ends is taking a good deal of space.
We both have an idea of where we need to go from my first post and your response and you have suggested something very sound in the following:
You wrote:
> I'm just a simple man who reads and believes the Bible. See me as an
> individual if you can, who loves God, and believes with his whole heart
> that the Bible is His word.
>
> Second, I'd really appreciate it if you'd introduce perhaps only a couple
> of thoughts at a time for us to kick around. Your last mail had quite bit
> to chew on.
You also wrote:
> Logical consistency is the first, most basic test that we all apply to
> truth claims. If a guy contradicts himself, then his story cannot be
> true. In the same way, worldviews should also be without contradiction,
> or they simply must be disqualified, wouldn't you agree?
My response:
Can we agree on the characteristics of a good truth claim? You have
suggested that a truth claim derived from the text of the OT/NT
should be simple and logically consistent. I also value accuracy,
scope and fruitfulness as I am sure do you.
A truth claim should be accurate within an agreed domain. Our primary concern should be the 'domain' of scripture (i.e. 'all scripture is inspired' 2 Tim 3:16,17). However, consistency means that the argument derived from scripture be not only logically consistent internally but, in addition, that it be consistent externally or in accord with accepted beliefs also derived from the OT/NT. This last point raises a crucial issue: Circumscribing consensus of belief in terms of church history.
It appears that you would agree to three periods in church history: The pre-Augustinian (end of the NT to Augustine and the Seven Ecumenical Councils); the Augustinian (from Augustine and the Councils to the Reformatioin); and the Post-Reformation Era (from the Protestant Reformation to the present). Am I correct in this assumption?
If I am correct, then we must demonstrate consistency of a truth claim within a given era. IMO because of the NT prediction of an apostasy, we are justified in holding suspect consensus of belief that derive from the Augustinian Era and the Seven Ecumenical Councils where they diverge from the consensus of the pre- Augustinian.
I think that accuracy and scope work together so that a truth claim should take in the entire scope of texts represented in the NT/OT rather than favoring only one group of texts to the exclusion of another.
Finally, whatever truth claim emerges from this process should be simple or make sense of a multiplicity of texts that in its absence would be individually isolated and, as a set, confused. This should lead to fruitfulness in terms of the commission of reconciling oursleves and others to our creator. I say this because in some sense all cultures share the history of Genesis 1-11 since they all derive, according to the scriptures, from Shem, Ham and Japheth. We should expect, therefore, that a solid, scriptural truth claim should be fruitful in leading others to embrace their own history and its meaning.
If we are agreed upon these basics, I think that we will move along very well in the rest of the discussion. If not, perhaps there is some areas of clarification that are needed.
Thank-you, John, for the prayer and effort you are putting into this dialogue. I sense the presence and help of the Holy Spirit as I seek to move into the truth.
All the best,
JB
Hi, JB. Thanks for the response. Here's my prayerful reply.
In my first mail I introduced the first most basic test that philosophers apply to truth claims, namely, the Logical Consistency Test. The two tests for a truth claim that usually follow (at least based on the philosophers that I've read) are tests for empirical adequacy and experiential relevance. Some philosophers propose two other tests to truth claims which are the Unaffirmability Test (does to claim try to affirm something unaffirmable, for example, "I don't speak a word of English", which cannot be true since I need to speak English to make the claim), and the Undeniability Test (does the claim try to deny the undeniable such as the claim that "I don't exist" which is undeniable since I need to exist in order to engage in the denying process).
You suggested three other characteristics of solid truth claims, namely, accuracy, scope, and fruitfulness. I don't know if you were suggesting that these ought to be applied to truth claims the same way as the logical consistency test (or any of the other that I mentioned). In none of the philosophers' writings that I have consulted are these mentioned as bona fide tests that may be applied to truth claims. May I suggest to you, without offence, that they should not be? Here are my concerns:
Let's look at your first characteristic of a truth claim, which was accuracy. According to the Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Version, "Accuracy" is defined as "The quality of being accurate". Under "Accurate", the definition we find is, "Confirming exactly to truth…".
When I looked up the word "Truth", the definition I read was, "That which is true; a statement or belief that corresponds with the reality… faithfulness to the facts of nature, history, or life."
The Webster's New World Dictionary actually uses the term "Accuracy" in its definition of "Truth"
So based on the dictionary definitions, a claim that is accurate will be true, and vice versa. Trying to determine whether a claim is true or not by first determining its accuracy seems a bit redundant. Whatever tests we apply to determine its accuracy will we not also apply to determine its truthfulness? In short, the idea of first determining the accuracy of a truth claim as a means of determining its truthfulness seems like an unneeded step in the chain. If a claim is true, then it follows naturally that it will also be accurate. Applying the 5 tests I've suggested above to truth claims seems an adequate guide without redundancy, don't you think?
You added:
A truth claim should be accurate within an agreed domain. Our primary concern should be the 'domain' of scripture (i.e. 'all scripture is inspired' 2 Tim 3:16,17). However, consistency means that the argument derived from scripture be not only logically consistent internally but, in addition, that it be consistent externally or in accord with accepted beliefs also derived from the OT/NT. This last point raises a crucial issue: Circumscribing consensus of belief in terms of church history.
It appears that you would agree to three periods in church history: The pre-Augustinian (end of the NT to Augustine and the Seven Ecumenical Councils); the Augustinian (from Augustine and the Councils to the Reformatioin); and the Post-Reformation Era (from the Protestant Reformation to the present). Am I correct in this assumption?
If I am correct, then we must demonstrate consistency of a truth claim within a given era. IMO because of the NT prediction of an apostasy, we are justified in holding suspect consensus of belief that derive from the Augustinian Era and the Seven Ecumenical Councils where they diverge from the consensus of the pre- Augustinian.
I agree wholehearted that consistency must extend to the whole of Scripture. However, I see no reason whatever that my interpretation of Scripture must conform to what may or may not have been accepted by the church as a whole throughout its history. This discussion is about the Bible that we hold in our hands today, and what it says to us now, in the present. Whatever men of the past may have thought about it is really a side issue.
As for the splitting of Church history into the three eras you suggested, I could go along with such a division, being fully aware however, that it is possible to divide, subdivide, and micro-divide history (or anything else for that matter) depending upon the criteria we choose. The splitting of church history into the three eras you suggested really seems irrelevant to our main concern, which was, I thought, whether the Genesis account of creation was intended by its Author to be understood in a literal sense.
You further stated:
I think that accuracy and scope work together so that a truth claim should take in the entire scope of texts represented in the NT/OT rather than favoring only one group of texts to the exclusion of another.
Agreed! However, your use of the word "scope" here, and the intimation that it may also be applied as a test for truthfulness also appears a bit redundant to me. Is it not just a re-stating of the "Logical Consistency Test"? That is, that the truth claim ought to harmonize with the whole of Scripture.
Finally, whatever truth claim emerges from this process should be simple or make sense of a multiplicity of texts that in its absence would be individually isolated and, as a set, confused.
This should lead to fruitfulness in terms of the commission of reconciling oursleves and others to our creator. I say this because in some sense all cultures share the history of Genesis 1-11 since they all derive, according to the scriptures, from Shem, Ham and Japheth. We should expect, therefore, that a solid, scriptural truth claim should be fruitful in leading others to embrace their own history and its meaning.
The last characteristic of a truth claim I think is most tenuous. Judging a truth claim by its "fruitfulness" is most subjective, and according to the principles laid out for us in Scripture, extremely imprudent.
For example, we learn in 2 Peter 2:5 that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. I have to suspect that what he was preaching was true in order to receive a title like that. How successful - how "fruitful" - was his message? If fruitfulness was applied as a test for truthfulness to the preaching of Noah, then one might conclude, erroneously, that his message was false. Other passages that speak of the unpopularity of the Christian message are 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Matthew 7:13-14, 1 Corinthians 1:22-23.
In a world that "layeth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19) that loves darkness rather than light, we ought to expect that our message will not be readily accepted by most.
Please give me your thoughts on what I have shared here. Are my statements unreasonable? Am I in error somewhere? Let me know what you think about this response and where you think the discussion should proceed from here. Might I suggest that we confine our discussion on whether or not the Genesis account of creation ought to be taken literally, to the pages of the Old and New Testaments (at least for now)?
I'm not used to e-mail discussions of this kind (I much prefer face-to-face discussions) but I'm trying my best, and deeply appreciate your time and input.
Blessings to you,
John Feakes